#116800 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Giving to immeasurable beings freedom from fear nilovg Dear Phil, Op 12-aug-2011, om 3:02 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > I love this sutta passage, it is referring to abhayadaana, the > giving of freedom from danger and fear: > > "Herein, monks, a noble disciple gives up the taking of life and > abstains from iy. By abstaining from (it) (he) gives to > immeasurable beings freedom from fear, gives to them freedom from > hostility and freedom from oppression. By giving to immeasurable > beings freedom from fear, hostility and oppression, he himself will > enjoy immeasurable freedom from f, h and o.". (AN 8, 39) > > The same is said about the other four precepts. > > I wonder if this is literally true or a stirring concept that > supports the samattha subject of recollection of virtues or > something like that. I guess it can't be literally true, but > believing it is literally true conditions abstaining? Helpful in my > case, occasionally, always a different stream(?)of conditioning > dhammas at work behind any moment of abstaining ------- N: It is very true. Abstaining from akusala can be seen under the aspect of daana. Instead of thinking of not doing this or that you can look at it in a very positive way. You wish the other person to be in peace. Also forgiving can be seen under this aspect. It is a kind of daana. You do not want to think of someone else in a hateful way and wish him only peace and wellbeing. Thus, when you think more of the wellbeing of others you will be less inclined to think of yourself, your own pleasure. This enhances siila in a natural way. ----- Nina. #116801 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Rob E. wrote: > What I mean to say is that they are not merely passive objects of > experience, which is how I understand "paramatha dhammas" to be defined by the > commentarial view. > ----------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't think that is the Abhidhammic or commentarial view of > paramattha dhammas. That has not been my impression. They are namas and rupas, and > namas include not only mental qualities but also mental *activities*. > Mental activities can, of course, be objects of consciousness, but as regards > themselves, they are not merely passive objects. As regards themselves, they, > for example consciousness, thinking, intention, wisdom, fear, love, worry, > attention, mindfulness, etc, etc, are "modes of mental functioning and > "encountering," and they are quite active. > ----------------------------------------------- I think the real issue as regards namas is whether they can be part of a stream of intentional activity that can be consciously tracked and directed by intention, or whether they arise randomly and without any active participation. And there are specifics that are spoken of in the commentary that just factually seem separate from their depiction in the suttas - for instance the idea that the 8-fold Noble Path is not a path of development of the 8 factors involved, but that they are momentary cetasikas that all arise in a quick sequence at the moments before enlightenment. This seems to have no antecedent in the teachings of the Buddha, but is accepted as fact in the commentaries. There are many other examples, such as the monadic nature of dhammas, and more. > I certainly think that every intentional action is experienced as an > arising dhamma by an apprehending citta, but I don't think that right action or > right effort are merely such experiences, but that actions exist in their > own right and that the action, not just the experience of the action, is > part of the path. > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Physical actions, intended or not, are rupas or aggregations of rupas. > What else could they be? > ----------------------------------------------- It depends on how you define rupas. The K. Sujin/commentarial view that is expressed on dsg defines rupas as individual experiential qualities rather than physical structures or events. If you define rupas as physical action-experiences that form larger patterns that are sensibly organized, then I would agree. I don't accept the idea of isolated sense-experiences that are totally separate and are only connected through delusory concepts. > I don't believe that action per se has any significance in the > commentarial view. > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > As I understand it, a physical action in the kammic sense, is any > collection of interrelated rupas that follow upon one or more instances of > intention/willing. That, perhaps, is what (physical) kammapatha is. > ---------------------------------------------- Well, it is always possible to define experiences down to an atomic level of distinct moments, and it may be useful to do so, but what is important is whether the path is seen as organized, involving how one lives as well as what one perceives and intends, and subject to practice, lifestyle and cultivation, which I think it is. That view is not always shared. > It is difficult to split such a distinction between the paramatha > terminology the way it is used, and the way that I understand it. The idea of > absolute realities has implications of single isolated bounded experiential > that have clear static existences for brief moments of existence and are > thoroughly passive in nature that I don't accept as a correct understanding of > action and experience. My understanding of the way in which paramatha > dhammas is used explicitly denies the existence of volitional actions. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > I think that if someone views namas only as objects that is just an > error. But do the commentaries do that? When I say 'objects of experience,' I don't mean physical objects, just to clarify, but objects of consciousness. I agree that namas are both objects of consciousness and active moments in their own right. > In any case, volitions are explicit > mental actions. Do the Abhidhamma or the commentaries say otherwise? The question, I think, is how they arise and how they are connected, whether the conscious mind participates in creating intentional streams that develop understanding, or whether development is a more random and ineffable operation. I do not know the scope of the Abhidhamma and commentaries with any kind of exhaustive knowledge. I am responding to the commentary quotes and views expressed in what I see and read, and the views I encounter in this group. There is a lot of expression of the view that the suttas, Visudhimagga, etc., are not meant to be taken as instructions that can be followed, or practices or lifestyles that can be adopted and systematically developed, but should all be translated into the experience of individual dhammas which can be understood more or less clearly, and that such understanding is the entire path. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #116802 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:14 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 11-aug-2011, om 20:28 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Regarding pariyatti, the idea that pariyatti is the beginning of > direct understanding confuses me. It seems that the point of > pariyatti is that Right Concept must precede Direct Seeing. Is that > a wrong apprehension on my part? If pariyatti is the beginning of > direct understanding, how does that match up with patipatti and > pativedha? ------ N: It shows us that it all amounts to understanding the present moment, the reality appearing now. If intellectual understanding does not pertain to seeing now, visible object now, it is not very fruitful. So, let us discuss more and more what appears now very naturally, through the six doorways, otherwise no beginning of pa.tipatti. I would say, try this, and then you will understand the meaning of pariyatti. It will all fall into place. ------ Nina. #116803 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Factors for predominance condition nilovg Dear Ken O, Op 11-aug-2011, om 19:45 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > yes in the Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma, there are four > dominants and > they are also the basis of success. I would not said that just > because citta is > dominant in lobha mula citta, they are the pre-dominance. Because > chanda, > viriya could also be predomiance in the arisen of loba mula citta > and not > necessary citta is the pre-dominance. ------ N: Yes, that is right. ------ > When one dominant arise, the other three > cannot be dominant. It could also be object decisive support which > cause a > dominant influence to the cittas. A person practise a wrong > practice could be > due to viriya or chanda to be the pre-dominance and not necessary > it is ditthi > arisen with lobha mula cittas. > > so it depends on which is the dominant factor. ------ N: It would depend on the moment. Di.t.thi is not a predominance condition. ------ Nina. #116804 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 3 sources of Panna. To Phil nilovg Dear Phil, Op 14-aug-2011, om 14:55 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > It is great that we appreciate Acharan Sujin, but I disagree that > listening to her and meditating are mutually exclusive. Well, it > doesn't matter. I will continue listening to her, and meditating. I > feel good about the way Dhamma is sinking deeper and deeper into my > life. ------ N: We can take meditating by way of considering dhamma. Listening and considering. In which posture you do that depends on the individual. ------ Nina. #116805 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:32 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Hi Howard, Op 14-aug-2011, om 20:00 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What I find remaining in Ven T's translation on ATI is the following: > > > phenomena > that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized - is 'Such.' And I tell > you: > There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime. > "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by > others, > One who is Such - among the self-fettered - wouldn't further claim > to be > true or even false. "Having seen well in advance that arrow where > generations are fastened & hung - 'I know, I see, that's just how > it is!' - there's > nothing of the Tathagata fastened." > ------- PTS has something similar: Only, where is the passage on conceit just before this? As to such an one, tathaa: means thus. B.B. in his translaion of the Brahmajaalasutta adds a commentarial treatise to the meaning of Tathaagata: thus come, thus gone, etc. ----- The text is not easy and we can compare different translations. But we are reminded to investigate what seeing is, what visible object is, the only way to understand the meaning of the text. Nina. > > #116806 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 3 sources of Panna. To Phil nilovg Dear Lukas and Phil, Op 14-aug-2011, om 21:57 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: Lukas wrote: > I recall what Sarah mentioned praise and blame just wordly things. > See, wise reflection. If I would never heard this reminder from > Sarah I could take your words for true. Oh Lukas that understands. > But this learns me that this is only a praise and after that will > be blame, this is natural way as things happens. This is only > unimportant wordly thing. So even such a small teaching from Buddha > but it happend to develop more right understanding. ------ N: Very well said, Lukas, a good reminder. ------ Nina. #116807 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:20 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: It shows us that it all amounts to understanding the present > moment, the reality appearing now. If intellectual understanding does > not pertain to seeing now, visible object now, it is not very > fruitful. Thanks for the encouragement and good advice. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - -- #116808 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:26 pm Subject: What I heard. What is visible object? nilovg Dear friends, I heard from a Thai recording: Someone said that she saw people and things, how could she know visible object? Kh S: We can enumerate what is in this room: a table, a chair, a Buddha statue. Are there things we did not mention? They are all visible object. At this moment all these things (including those that were not mentioned) appear through the eyes. We see colours such as blue or yellow, even when we do not name them. The things in this room we did not enumerate do not appear yet as shape and form, but all that appears through eyes is real. There is no need to think of shape and form. We say that there is this person, this table, but we do not need to mention them, what is seen is visible object. What appears through the eyes is reality, it appears already. We enumerate the things in this room, but we do not mention all of them, and these are also visible object, appearing through the eyes. We do not think yet of shape and form of these things, there is only visible object that appears to seeing-consciousness. Understanding this can eliminate clinging to shape and form. There is no person, no thing in what appears. There are no persons, that is the meaning of anattaa. There are no other methods to realize the arising and falling away of realities. One cannot realize this yet because so much ignorance has been accumulated. ******** Nina. #116809 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:45 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, (Vince, Pt & all), --- On Wed, 10/8/11, philip wrote: >>S: And, Phil, the good and kind friend can also encourage other friends with little/no interest in the Dhamma, such as your good squash partner, to be kind and considerate to family members and those around them, to live contentedly and to follow good habits including keeping the precepts so as not to hurt others. .... >Ph: Yes, Ive appreciated this. Of course the precepts don't apply to her (taking the precepts is an act of volition that indicates our respect for the Buddha and desire to follow his advice) but of course akusala kamma patha apply to anyone. But they cannot be communicated to someone with no sensitivity to the Buddha's teaching. ..... S: I think that most religions, most school teachings encourage honesty and consideration for others - the very 'bedrocks' of the precepts. We don't have to call these values 'Buddhist' or 'precepts'. We've discussed before how our Japanese students tend to be particularly sensitive and considerate of the needs of others, so I think one can relate one's message to this tradition. .... >PH:Instead, I chose a teaching from Dhammapada, the wise person sacrifices a middling pleasure (sex and other "skinship") for tge greater pleasure of peace of mibd tgat one has avoided hurting. I'm glad I didn't reject her, metta has been prevalent in my recent dealings with her, so I avoided hurting her, which is always good. .... S:....and her family. .... >PH:I remember Scott once proposing tgat our actions didn't impact others, and I remember Sukin telling me that it was a delusion on my part to believe that a woman had been made uncomfortable (was hurt) by my hungry gaze, that is going too far and is an example of how an overriding interest in "the presently arisen nama and rupa" can be premature, we have to live life at a level of panna (in this case one that says there are people around us that we impact) that is suitable. .... S: Only Sukin may know, but perhaps the point was/is that we often think and imagine what others' throughts or responses may be, (or whether they really have an understanding of dhammas!), instead of being aware of the reality at the time - just thinking, ignorance, seeing, hearing and so on. This in no way undermines the importance of considerate behaviour (as in your 'hungry gaze' example) or of metta generally. .... >Someday conditions may lead to a deeper, more liberating understanding, but for now, for me,there is thinking about paramattha topics, the best possible topic for thinking, but life goes on in conventional terms. A.S says in Perfections, I think, that everyone should know the degree of kusala that is suitable, I'm glad I do, and I have confidence that panna will develop THROUGH this gradual level rather than being pushed to leapfrog it, which could lead to it landing in a very strange posture and deprived of the wonderful food for development provided by samuttisacca, conventional truth. .... S: ;-) Any understanding, any kusala will be as it unfolds by conditions regardless. I asked KS about the same comment once, maybe on your behalf, I forget, and she responded that she meant that some people just know they're not interested in hearing about realities, paramattha dhammas. For example, we all have family members who appreciate generosity and good behaviour, but have no interest at all in hearing more about seeing, visible object and other dhammas as being anatta. .... >Ph:For me, the sublime nourishment of paramatthasacca should not be force fed, especially by people who might not understand it yet even at the intellectual level. Very different when listening to Acharn Sujin... .... S: People just try to share what they find helpful and we can appreciate the good intentions whether or not we find it helpful or agree with the message or delivery:-) I'd also encourage anyone else to listen to A.Sujin on the edited recordings: www.dhammastudygroup.org Of course, some will feel they are being 'force fed' paramatthasacca:-) It all comes back to the present citta, the present mind-states now as we write, read, listen or partake of any other activities! Thx for the discussion and opportunity to reflect further. Btw, I thought of you, Vince, Pt and others as I read a good quote by Ven Samahita from Saccasamyutta about how rare it is to be reborn among humans or devas because so few avoid breaking the precepts and other harsh behaviour. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/116685 I was surprised to see the line about the few who "avoid damaging the nature, seeds and plant life...", but don't have texts with me to check easily. Maybe Pt can check it out on his Galaxy! Metta Sarah ======= #116810 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:59 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, (& Alex), --- On Wed, 10/8/11, Robert E wrote: >> S: When we truly learn to appreciate that there are only namas and rupas, we'll realise that all the craving, all the desire we enjoy so much is just for rupas, feelings, memories, other conditioned mental tendencies and consciousness as experienced from moment to moment. This is why the understanding of these dhammas at the present moment is the only way for wisdom to pierce the cloak of ignorance which leads to such craving, imagination and "carelessness" to those around us. R:>This is very nicely put, and I also enjoyed seeing the Pali below. I tried reciting it to myself aloud a few times, even with what must be a terrible accent, and it is very beautiful to hear some approximation of the musicality and rhythm of the original Pali. .... > *"Evameva kho raadha, tubbhepi ruupa.m vikiratha vidhamatha viddha.msetha, > viki.lanika.m karotha. Ta.nhakkhayaaya pa.tipajattha. Vedana.m vikiratha > vidhimatha viddha.msetha viki.lanika.m karotha ta.nhakkhayaaya > pa.tipajjatha. Sa~n~na.m.... sa.mkhaare.....Ta.nhakkhayo hi raadha, > nibbaananti." .... S: Thx for you kind words and yes, I know what you mean about reciting the Pali, no matter our accent. Alex will point out that it's all in the imperative tone: "So too, radha, scatter form, demolish it, shatter it, put it out to play; practise for the destruction of craving. Scatter feeling etc.... Strong words from the Buddha. Does this mean that an Atta or Special Intention or Meditation Practice should practice now "for the destruction of craving" to the various khandhas? It is only by the practice of developing understanding that craving can be destroyed, that rupa, vedana and the rest can be demolished. So what about the imperative "practice of understanding", Alex will ask? Now, there can be understanding of rupa, of vedana. of craving of any dhamma which appears now. No Atta, no Speial Intention, no Special Meditation Practice required:-) Metta Sarah ======= Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #116811 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:08 pm Subject: Re: 3 sources of Panna. To Phil szmicio Dear Ken O, I always appreciate your reminders. I compiled your explanation of a words at the beginning with a commentarial text you gave before with my comments. I think this is not easy to grasp. Ken O: specific nature means understanding the characteristics of a dhamma for example understanding feeling feels while general characteristics are anatta, anicca and dukkha. Direct experiental knowledge is at the nama and rupa level of vipassana while inferiential knowledge is the conventional understanding. Reflective knowledge is through the constant thinking, investigating and relfecting the nature of nama and rupa until one reach direct experiential knowledge. Commentarial Text: In the Commentary to The All Embracing Net of Views translated by B Bohdi, pg 141 L: What is paali term for The All Embracing Net of Views? What is the paali for this commentary? <> L: I prefer here to leave bhavana and dont translate it as meditative developement, then people can check what bhavana really means. So by bhavana, that is mentioned as one of the kusala, and may pertrain to mental purification or developement direct experiential knowledge rise and knows each khandha as the are, experiencing the specific(sabhava) characteristic(lakkhana) of each dhamma. So reflective knowledge here is mentioned in the context of sutta-maya panna only. Why is that? Com:A treatise of paramis http://www.abhidhamma.org/Paramis-%20perfections%20of%20insight.htm L: What is treatise of paramis? <> L: Thanks Ken, this was very helpful. I am waiting for your reply to ponder more over that. To me all 3 sources of wisom are still unclear. But in brief I think of them now: 1. Sutta-maya panna: The knowledge that is based on learning. Just mere knowledge of words and different classification. This is not reflection, but only having now, got learned, the different Vibhangas and Scriptures. Just like a school knowledge, but with yoniso manasikara, wise attention. 2. Cinta-maya panna: The knowledge that is born form wise examination or reflection of what was learned. 3. Bhavana-maya panna: The knowledge born from applying what was learned and reflected in life. reflecting thus: this dhatu is only a dhatu, it has its characteristic now. Best wishes Lukas #116812 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:11 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- On Wed, 10/8/11, Robert E wrote: >>S: 1. No one believes that "anything physical is inconsequential except as an object of citta", ... R:>I am not sure about this. It seems that there are many many comments that suggest that physical action does not really exist, as all actions, people and objects are conceptual objects of mind, not actualities. I guess there may be a world of rupas, which include single individual qualities such as hardness and such, but such qualities are only experiential, not actually physical. ... S: There are only rupas. I don't understand what you mean when you suggest these are "only experiential, not actually physical." These are physical dhammas regardless of whether or not they are experienced. It's true that what we refer to as actions such as postures, people and objects are conceptual objects of the mind. However, without the physical rupas and namas involved, there'd be no concepts. .... >It is true we only experience anything through the senses, including action, objects, etc., but there is a dividing line I think, between those who believe that physical bodies are in fact really there, and those who really think there are only experiences of physical qualities, but no bodies or objects actually being apprehended, and that such are only extrapolations of experiential moments. .... S: Let's take 'the physical bodies" you refer to. Which doorway are these experienced through? ... >R:Do the experiential moments reveal real bodies and objects, brains, eyes, hands and cars, or do experiential moments ultimately reveal that these never really existed except as concepts? .... S: Again, if they are not concepts, which door way are "real bodies" and "brains" experienced through? Can you see 'brain' or touch it? .... R:>I think it is clear for those who believe the latter that this is the reason that no emphasis is put on taking meritorious actions in the world, going into seclusion except into "mental seclusion" as has been said many times, and that such practices as meditation and other physical regimens can have no spiritual effect or content, because they are acting on an illusory conceptual realm, rather than really affecting the experiential realm that does affect the development of panna, etc. .... S: Oh, what a red flag you've raised:-) Here are the "Meritorious Actions" as listed in Nyantiloka's Buddhist Dict: pu~n~na-kiriya-vatthu 'bases of meritorious action'. In the suttas, 3 are mentioned consisting of giving (liberality; daana-maya-p.), of morality (siila-maya-p.) and of mental development (meditation; bhaavanaa-maya-p.). See D.33; It.60; expl. in A.VIII.36. Commentaries have a list of ten (dasa p.) which is very popular in Buddhist countries: (1)-(3) as above, (4) reverence (apaciti), (5) service (veyyaavacca), (6) transference of merit (pattaanuppadaana), (7) rejoicing in others' merit (abbhaanumodana), (8) expounding the Doctrine (desanaa), (9) listening to the Doctrine (savana), (10) straightening one's right views (rectification of views; ditthujukamma). - Expl. in Atthasālini Tr. 209ff. .... S: True, no mention of "going into seclusion" here. Metta Sarah ====== #116813 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:19 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 15-aug-2011, om 9:45 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > I was surprised to see the line about the few who "avoid damaging > the nature, seeds and plant life...", but don't have texts with me > to check easily. ------ N: I think this is in the Vinaya, in the context of keeping the vassa, the rainy season. People were complaining of monks damaging the crops. The Buddha said that the monks should limit traveling during the rainy season. ------ Nina. #116814 From: "philip" Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Degrees of kusala philofillet Hi Nina > ------ > N: Any kusala accompanied by pa~n~naa is of a higher degree. > Especially when one does not take kusala for self it is of a higher > degree. > I heard on a recording: when one thinks: this is kusala, this is > akusala, one still thinks of names and forgets: it is only naama > dhamma. The first stage of insight is knowing naama as naama and > ruupa as ruupa. There is not yet precise understading of kusala and > akusala. It is important first to know these as just dhammas, naama > dhammas, otherwise we always think of self having kusala or akusala. Ph: Thanks Nina, I appreciate about this sort of thing, it sinks in, even as I carry on with practices that are self-rooted, what I hear still sinks in... Back next week, thanks also for the other two posts. Metta, Phil > > > > Ph: By the way, in Perfections (p.146) I wonder why Acharn Sujin > > says "everybody should know for himself what degree of kusala he > > wants to develop."? > > Of course I take this to mean that it is good for me to be > > primarily intetested in dana and sila, which need not always be > > accompanied by panna, I do not feel aware of presence of panna such > > as sati-sampajanna which knows characteristics of dhammas, but I > > still feel there are great opportunities for kusala in daily life. > ------ > N: It depends on someone's accumulated inclinations, nothing can be > forced. > ----- > Nina. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #116816 From: Lukas Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:04 pm Subject: 2 kinds of development szmicio Dear friends, There are to kinds of development. Samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. There are dvi-hetuka kusala citta and ti-hetuka kusala citta. Is samatha and vipassana always ti-hetuka kusala citta? What kind of panna is with samatha and vipassana? Does jhana arise with panna of samatha or vipassana? Best wishes Lukas #116817 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:35 pm Subject: Re: A Question and Possible Answer (Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 8/15/2011 1:58:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 14-aug-2011, om 14:18 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > 1) When one seems to see a snake at twilight, but looking more > carefully sees instead a coiled rope, at the moment of seeing the > rope, the > illusion of snake disappears (and a "snake" is no longer > perceived). Analogously, > when one seems to observe a body or tree or building or concerto, > but then > attending more carefully, observes instead a mere flow of physical > qualities (rupas), at that moment, the illusion of body or tree or > building or > concerto disappears and is no longer perceived. ------- N: I know these are just similes, but even seeing a rope is not seeing visible object. -------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, of course it is not. It is a fabricated mental object. As you say, it was just a simile. This is why I wrote "analogously". ------------------------------------------------------- There is still some 'thing'. But again, you just used it as a simile. ------------------------------------------------------ HCW: Yes, exactly. As an aid to understanding only that. ------------------------------------------------------ ------- Nina. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116818 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 8/15/2011 2:09:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Rob E. wrote: > What I mean to say is that they are not merely passive objects of > experience, which is how I understand "paramatha dhammas" to be defined by the > commentarial view. > ----------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't think that is the Abhidhammic or commentarial view of > paramattha dhammas. That has not been my impression. They are namas and rupas, and > namas include not only mental qualities but also mental *activities*. > Mental activities can, of course, be objects of consciousness, but as regards > themselves, they are not merely passive objects. As regards themselves, they, > for example consciousness, thinking, intention, wisdom, fear, love, worry, > attention, mindfulness, etc, etc, are "modes of mental functioning and > "encountering," and they are quite active. > ----------------------------------------------- I think the real issue as regards namas is whether they can be part of a stream of intentional activity that can be consciously tracked and directed by intention, or whether they arise randomly and without any active participation. -------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: It is clear to me that namas, both including mental qualities and mental activities, are the result of a multiplicity of conditions among which are moments of intention, some fully conscious but most subliminal. I doubt that Abhidhamma and the commentaries dispute that. Certainly the Buddha did not in the suttas. ----------------------------------------------------------- And there are specifics that are spoken of in the commentary that just factually seem separate from their depiction in the suttas - for instance the idea that the 8-fold Noble Path is not a path of development of the 8 factors involved, but that they are momentary cetasikas that all arise in a quick sequence at the moments before enlightenment. This seems to have no antecedent in the teachings of the Buddha, but is accepted as fact in the commentaries. ---------------------------------------------------------- HCW: I've not seen that in suttas. As regards the Abhidhamma I'm uncertain, but I don't recall seeing it in the Dhammasangani. (I DO think that the noble 8-fold path as taught by the Buddha in the suttas is at the "macroscopic level," although like all "things" at that level is imputed upon a vast array of far simpler, interrelated mental and physical phenomena - namas and rupas. ------------------------------------------------------------ There are many other examples, such as the monadic nature of dhammas, and more. ------------------------------------------------------------ HCW: I think that is a matter of conceptual, separative reification that simplifies as it falsifies. -------------------------------------------------------- > I certainly think that every intentional action is experienced as an > arising dhamma by an apprehending citta, but I don't think that right action or > right effort are merely such experiences, but that actions exist in their > own right and that the action, not just the experience of the action, is > part of the path. > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Physical actions, intended or not, are rupas or aggregations of rupas. > What else could they be? > ----------------------------------------------- It depends on how you define rupas. The K. Sujin/commentarial view that is expressed on dsg defines rupas as individual experiential qualities rather than physical structures or events. If you define rupas as physical action-experiences that form larger patterns that are sensibly organized, then I would agree. ------------------------------------------------------------ HCW: That is my perspective. --------------------------------------------------------- I don't accept the idea of isolated sense-experiences that are totally separate and are only connected through delusory concepts. ------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Nor do I. ------------------------------------------------------ > I don't believe that action per se has any significance in the > commentarial view. > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > As I understand it, a physical action in the kammic sense, is any > collection of interrelated rupas that follow upon one or more instances of > intention/willing. That, perhaps, is what (physical) kammapatha is. > ---------------------------------------------- Well, it is always possible to define experiences down to an atomic level of distinct moments, and it may be useful to do so, but what is important is whether the path is seen as organized, involving how one lives as well as what one perceives and intends, and subject to practice, lifestyle and cultivation, which I think it is. That view is not always shared. > It is difficult to split such a distinction between the paramatha > terminology the way it is used, and the way that I understand it. The idea of > absolute realities has implications of single isolated bounded experiential > that have clear static existences for brief moments of existence and are > thoroughly passive in nature that I don't accept as a correct understanding of > action and experience. My understanding of the way in which paramatha > dhammas is used explicitly denies the existence of volitional actions. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > I think that if someone views namas only as objects that is just an > error. But do the commentaries do that? When I say 'objects of experience,' I don't mean physical objects, just to clarify, but objects of consciousness. ----------------------------------------------------------- HCW: No, I understood you. ----------------------------------------------------------- I agree that namas are both objects of consciousness and active moments in their own right. > In any case, volitions are explicit > mental actions. Do the Abhidhamma or the commentaries say otherwise? The question, I think, is how they arise and how they are connected, whether the conscious mind participates in creating intentional streams that develop understanding, or whether development is a more random and ineffable operation. ------------------------------------------------------------ HCW: My introspection displays intention as operating both subliminally (often) and at the level of full awareness (at times, though less often). In either case, it is conditioned and not self-causing. ------------------------------------------------------------ I do not know the scope of the Abhidhamma and commentaries with any kind of exhaustive knowledge. I am responding to the commentary quotes and views expressed in what I see and read, and the views I encounter in this group. There is a lot of expression of the view that the suttas, Visudhimagga, etc., are not meant to be taken as instructions that can be followed, or practices or lifestyles that can be adopted and systematically developed, but should all be translated into the experience of individual dhammas which can be understood more or less clearly, and that such understanding is the entire path. ----------------------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't assume that all the perspectives expressed on DSG as reflecting the content of Abhidhamma and the commentaries are free of personal opinion. I am largely ignorant of the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentaries, and that puts me in a position of not being able to tell what is fully faithful reportage, what is personal view, and what is a mix. --------------------------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. =================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116819 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:22 pm Subject: Trim reminder time dsgmods Hi All, Trimming When replying to another member’s post, please remember to delete any part of the other post that is not necessary for your reply. This helps those scrolling through messages, those who print out messages, those with limited bandwidth and those who have the time-consuming task of backing up the archives. If you need guidance, pls contact Pt or one of us off-list. Thanks for your co-operation. Jon and Sarah p.s replies off-list only, thx! #116820 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Degrees of kusala nilovg Hi Phil, Op 15-aug-2011, om 10:37 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ph: Thanks Nina, I appreciate about this sort of thing, it sinks > in, even as I carry on with practices that are self-rooted, what I > hear still sinks in... > > Back next week, thanks also for the other two posts. ------ N: Then I see you in about two weeks, because it is my turn to take a break next week :-)) ------ Nina. #116821 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 2 kinds of development nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 15-aug-2011, om 12:04 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > There are to kinds of development. Samatha bhavana and vipassana > bhavana. There are dvi-hetuka kusala citta and ti-hetuka kusala > citta. Is samatha and vipassana always ti-hetuka kusala citta? ----- N: Yes, pa~n~naa is needed to develop them. ----- > L: What kind of panna is with samatha and vipassana? ----- N: Pa~n~naa of the level of samatha knows when the citta is kusala and when akusala, and it knows how to reach true calm with a meditation subject so that the hindrances will be temporarily suppressed. Pa~n~naa of the level of vipassanaa understands the characteristic of the reality appearing at the present moment, and it will realize its nature of impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. Eventually when enlightenment is attained pa~n~naa will eradicate latent tendencies of defilements. ------ > L: Does jhana arise with panna of samatha or vipassana? ------ N: Jhaana is a level of highly developed samatha. However, at the moment of enlightenment lokuttara cittas arise that have calm of the level of at least the first stage of jhaana. Then nibbaana is the object they experience. Those who have developed samatha and vipassanaa can have lokuttara cittas with jhaana of higher stages. ------ Nina. #116822 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:55 am Subject: Re: 2 kinds of development szmicio Dear Nina, > N: Pa~n~naa of the level of samatha knows when the citta is kusala > and when akusala, and it knows how to reach true calm with a > meditation subject so that the hindrances will be temporarily > suppressed. L: So a samatha is not just kusala citta without panna of samatha? When vipassana arises, there is panna of vipassana and the panna of samatha? Does the object of kusala citta in samatha is a nimitta of an one meditation object? Can mere panna of vipassana know if citta is kusala and akusala and the way to develop more of kusala? > Pa~n~naa of the level of vipassanaa understands the characteristic of > the reality appearing at the present moment, and it will realize its > nature of impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. Eventually when > enlightenment is attained pa~n~naa will eradicate latent tendencies > of defilements. > ------ So it will realize the samannalakhhana of each dhamma, but will it also realize the sabhavalakkhana of realities? > N: Jhaana is a level of highly developed samatha. However, at the > moment of enlightenment lokuttara cittas arise that have calm of the > level of at least the first stage of jhaana. Then nibbaana is the > object they experience. Those who have developed samatha and > vipassanaa can have lokuttara cittas with jhaana of higher stages. > ------ L: I've heard that jhana not necessrily arise with lokuttara citta, so when the lokuttara citta arises is it obligatory supported with the jhana? In the jhana that was taught by the Buddha, the right understanding that knows the characteristics of realities must be present to achive and sustain jhana? Best wishes Lukas #116823 From: Ken O Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 2 kinds of development ashkenn2k Dear Nina >----- >N: Pa~n~naa of the level of samatha knows when the citta is kusala >and when akusala, and it knows how to reach true calm with a >meditation subject so that the hindrances will be temporarily >suppressed. KO: I have yet see the text saying that samantha development that panna is at the level where citta know what is kusala and akusala. Samantha is about developing jhanas till it could be used as a basis of insight. In order for it to be develop as a basis of insight, then panna must be develop also. For those without Buddha panna, one only ends up rebirth in Brahma plane. Samantha cannot be developed without the five faculties being balance and not just panaa. It must have a mindfulness, viriya, faith and concentration as well. Jhanas is not about calm, because immense joy arise do arise in certain level of jhanas where piti and pleasant feeling arise. And equamimity is not calm, calm is only passadhi cetasikas. The text always used concentration as samantha and insight as vipassana. If you think I am wrong, please do quote the ancient text to support your interpretation. I will quote mine on the meaning of calm and concentration. thanks Ken O #116824 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:34 am Subject: Nimitta (was [dsg] Re: Smell etc, inseparable rupas epsteinrob Hi Phil, and Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Ken O > > > > there is nothing wrong about nimitta, we need them to understand dhamma. Even > > if our understanding is still full of nimattas, it is still understanding. > > Thanks, I agree, how else could fleeting dhammas reach our awareness except as nimitta? If the lightning flash mind of the Ariyan can have more direct awareness, great for him or her... > > Metta, > Phil I am jumping in, because this is a topic that interests me a lot as well. It seems that nimita is a sort of bridge perception on the way to direct seeing, as if, for instance, we wanted to see what a train was like going at high speed, and we took a high-speed photo of the train. We can't see the train straight on, but we can look at the photo afterwards and it records pretty much the exact way the train appears while it is moving at such high speed. Well, it's not exactly like seeing it directly, but it replicates a view of what it is "really like" although stopped for our purposes. Or if one were to take a film of the train going by and then play it back in slower motion to see how it works at that speed. Anyway, seems like a decent analogy for nimita. Rather than just having a removed distant concept of what a dhamma is like, nimita should be a 'true record' of what the dhamma is like, although 'recorded in concept' and 'played back' after it has already passed away at high speed. That would be very useful for having a closer understanding of the 'real dhamma' and how it behaves and occurs. On the other hand, I don't especially like the idea that we don't have to worry at all about whether we are dealing with nimittas or real direct seeing of dhammas, almost dismissively, as though it were all the same. There is a sense in which we can be assuaged and don't have to worry about indirect conceptual seeing, as long as we use the word nimitta instead of concept, because the nimitta is given to be that much closer to reality. It is almost as if we can rest assured tha satipatthana is developing even though we don't really see. Can a nimitta be the object of sati? Can there be mindful seeing and clear knowing of a concept, however much closer it may be to the real object? My understanding is that a concept cannot be the object of satipatthana, period. I will be happy to hear comments to contradict this, or explain more how the 'bridge of nimitta' works to develop satipatthana, as it seems like both a bridge and a contradiction to the idea of developing real seeing, and being able to get beyond the world of concept. It seems like another example of using 'right concept'as a bridge, but also as a substitute for direct seeing. The discussion below suggests that the nimitta is just as good as direct seeing for the purposes of satipatthana. This still confuses me. Here is the crux: PH: I remember I heard Sayadaw U Silananda say that when there is nimitta the reality has fallen away, but for the purpose of satipatthana we can say it is still present. N: Yes, we can still say that there is awareness of the present object although it has just fallen away. ================================ > > >> N: It is the nimitta *of a* reality. Concept can have many meanings > > >> and that is why we have to be careful when answering: is it a reality > > >> or a concept. > > >> ------ > > >> > PH: I remember I heard Sayadaw U Silananda say that when there is > > >> > nimitta the reality has fallen away, but for the purpose of > > >> > satipatthana we can say it is still present. > > >> > > > >> ------ > > >> N: Yes, we can still say that there is awareness of the present > > >> object although it has just fallen away. ============================= Best, Robert E. #116825 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:48 am Subject: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > -------------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > It is clear to me that namas, both including mental qualities and > mental activities, are the result of a multiplicity of conditions among which > are moments of intention, some fully conscious but most subliminal. I doubt > that Abhidhamma and the commentaries dispute that. Certainly the Buddha did > not in the suttas. > ----------------------------------------------------------- I also understand that many moments of intention, and various other conditions, occur without conscious knowledge, and are more subliminal. The point to me is whether one is able to take stock of current conditions to some extent and whether intention is able to plot a course based on that assessment. That, and whether practice is able to be engaged in a systematic way, and whether such practice has a positive [kusala] impact if done without forceful attachment to results. The practical import of such a distinction is the divide that we often find here, between the path being restricted to apprehension of arising life-moments with no definite or purposeful or systematic practice, and the idea that the path can be engaged much more systematically, even with the understanding that there is no control and that one is adapting constantly to changing conditions in order to 'plot a course.' I've always enjoyed the analogy of sailing a boat, although I am very bad at it myself. You can't control the wind or the waves, obviously, and if you want to get in a direction that is against the wind, you have to "tack," which means to use the wind direction as you find it to indirectly move the boat in the right direction. Because you understand and acknowledge the 'opposing wind,' you can adapt and utilize it to get where you need to go. I think life-conditions are like that too, and practice is like that too. One has the goal of increased development of the path in mind, but one cannot just grasp that goal and force it to take place. But one can practice within conditions and develop understanding gradually. There's no control, but there is intention and practice. In fact, all the serious practitioners here, whether they are students of commentary or engage a meditation practice, are following a systematic path. It's just a question of whether the path is one of understanding of Dhamma and everyday life without an additional practice, or whether one also applies the study of Dhamma in meditation. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: I DO think that the > noble 8-fold path as taught by the Buddha in the suttas is at the > "macroscopic level," although like all "things" at that level is imputed upon a vast > array of far simpler, interrelated mental and physical phenomena - namas and > rupas. > ------------------------------------------------------------ I agree that the macroscopic goals and activities break down into namas and rupas. I don't think this stops us from engaging the macroscopic level though. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > My introspection displays intention as operating both subliminally > (often) and at the level of full awareness (at times, though less often). In > either case, it is conditioned and not self-causing. > ------------------------------------------------------------ I don't mean to overemphasize that which one is directly conscious of, though this is of course an important part of intention. I agree that intention is conditioned, and not self-causing. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't assume that all the perspectives expressed on DSG as > reflecting the content of Abhidhamma and the commentaries are free of personal > opinion. I am largely ignorant of the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentaries, > and that puts me in a position of not being able to tell what is fully > faithful reportage, what is personal view, and what is a mix. > --------------------------------------------------------- Well, I think what is clear is that the dsg view is a coherent and consistent one, emanating from a very specific interpretation of the commentaries to both sutta and Abhidhamma, and that such a view is reflected in some of the ideas in the commentaries that are not directly spoken of in the sutta pitaka. I don't think it's a matter of individual opinion, but of a specific movement within Theravada. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #116826 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:56 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Alex will point out that it's all in the imperative tone: [me too.] > "So too, radha, scatter form, demolish it, shatter it, put it out to play; practise for the destruction of craving. Scatter feeling etc.... > > Strong words from the Buddha. Does this mean that an Atta or Special Intention or Meditation Practice should practice now "for the destruction of craving" to the various khandhas? No, but that does not mean either that practice cannot take place, based on those words. I think there's continued confusion between the attachment of the idea of self to the idea of intentional practice. Intentional practice can take place, spurred on by Dhamma and the arising of volition, without any self being involved. This is in fact how volitional acts take place, I believe, without any Atta, because there is in fact no Atta present. One can practice intentionally with or without self-view, just as one can purposely refrain from systematic intentional practice, with or without self-view. In my view it is the self-view that matters, and it is not automatically invoked by the intention to practice purposively. Since volition does create action, as volition arises there is no reason not to follow it to engage in kusala action, as the Buddha most clearly did encourage in the above sutta. I think it is a mistake to refrain from kusala activities that develop the path because of fear of self-view, just as it is a mistake to engage in akusala activities based on a sense that all arising dhammas are equivalent. > It is only by the practice of developing understanding that craving can be destroyed, that rupa, vedana and the rest can be demolished. > > So what about the imperative "practice of understanding", Alex will ask? I [and Alex, I assume] would believe that following the imperative of purposeful practice does lead to greater understanding, and is an important part of the path. You say that no additional practice is necessary or desirable, and that is likely where you and I [ and Alex :-) ] disagree. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #116827 From: Ken O Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 3 sources of Panna. To Phil ashkenn2k Dear Lukas > >Commentarial Text: >In the Commentary to The All Embracing Net of Views translated by B Bohdi, pg >141 > >L: What is paali term for The All Embracing Net of Views? What is the paali for >this commentary? KO: sorry not good at getting pali so I cannot help you on this ><dhammas (paramathadhamma) (1) the characteristics of the specific nature >(sabhavalakkhana) and (2) the general characteristics (samannalakkhana). > >L: So two kinds of characteristics. Sabhavalakkhana and samannalakkhana. So this > >means the characteristics of each dhamma, that is an object to panna and the 3 >minor characteristics, that is anicca, anatta and dukka, that are lakkhanas of >each dhamma? Why this distinction is made? KO: These general three characteristics are in all conditioned dhammas be it panna or kusala or akusala, and even kiriya. This is the nature of all conditioned dhammas, something no one can change. Only Nibbana is anatta without the other two characteristics since it is not conditioned. Specific characteristics are pertaining to each dhamma. It helps in the development of understanding that in each dhamma, there is no agency or being, it is just the functions of the different dhamma that make us experience this and that. What we understand now in this level are just convetional understanding of the specific characteristics and through reflecting, considering, then it slowly develop to vipasanna level where we develop direct understanding of nama and rupa level. But that still did not guarantee enlightment until one reach the level of understanding the three characteristics at nama and rupa level. So the understanding of the three characteristics with no direct seeing is known as is inferential knowledge.. These are my personal opinions >Com: The >comprehension of the characteristics of specific nature is direct experiential >knowledge (paccakkanana); the compreshension of the general characteristics is >inferential knowledge (anumananana). > >L: So vipassana ~nana, and reflective wisdom. But what is stated here by >reflective knowledge? Reflective knowledge is not a wisdom that can eradict >kilesas. KO: yes you right. reflective knowledge is the development of panna but not eradicating kilesas, lessening kiles. Only nibbana eradicated kilesas > >Com: Scripture as the means for acquiring >wisdom born of learning (sutamayi panna), issues only in inferential knowledge. > >L:Oh, So this is like a school knowledge pertraining to the Scriptures. Learning > >all the classifications can be a condition to sutta-maya panna or learinig >Scriptures is sutta-maya panna? >Com:But by considering the things learned, one becomes establish in reflective >aquiescence, give rise to the wisdom born of reflection (cintamayi panna), > >L: What aquiescence means? >So this seems, the things learned is a sutta-maya panna, the mere intelectual >knowledge of a Scriptures and after that there are conditions for considering >with wise attention of what was heard. Am I right? KO: I will not say school or intellectual, rather when one does not have direct seeing, so it is just inferential knowledge. But this is the start of the journey, every learning, listening, thinking help >Com: and >by mediatitive development (bhavana) gradually achieves direct experiential >knowledge>> > >L: I prefer here to leave bhavana and dont translate it as meditative >developement, then people can check what bhavana really means. >So by bhavana, that is mentioned as one of the kusala, and may pertrain to >mental purification or developement direct experiential knowledge rise and knows > >each khandha as the are, experiencing the specific(sabhava) >characteristic(lakkhana) of each dhamma. > >So reflective knowledge here is mentioned in the context of sutta-maya panna >only. Why is that? KO: bhavana is development. There are two types of bhavana in the texts, samantha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. So it depends which bhavana you are into. To say it is just vipassana bhavana then it is not in accordance to the text. There are both mention in the commentaries, suttas and Abhidhamma text. > >Com:A treatise of paramis >http://www.abhidhamma.org/Paramis-%20perfections%20of%20insight.htm > >L: What is treatise of paramis? KO: Bodhisattvas practise to be Buddha >< > >sense bases, the eighteen elements, the four truths, the twenty-two faculties, >the twelve factors of dependent origination, the foundations of mindfulness, >etc., the various classifications of phenomena such as the wholesome, etc., as >well as any blameless secular fields of knowledge which may be suitable for >promoting the welfare and happiness of beings, particularly grammar. Thus, with >wisdom, mindfulness, and energy preceded by skilful means, a bodhisattva should >first thoroughly immerse himself in this entire sphere of learning -- through >study, listening, memorization, learning, and interrogation; then he should >establish others in learning. In this way the wisdom born of learning (sutamayi >panna) can be developed. > >L: I mentioned before, sutta-maya panna is mere school knowledge refering to the > >Texts. But this is mentioned with mindfulness, panna and energy. So this is >reading with yoniso manasikara, right examination. Am I right? KO: wise attention is panna. >Com: So too, out of his wish for the welfare of others, the >bodhisattva should develop the wisdom of ingenuity in creating opportunities to >fulfil his various duties to his fellow beings and the skilful means in >understanding their happiness and misery. > >Then he should develop wisdom born of reflection (cintamayi panna) by first >reflecting upon the specific nature of the phenomena such as the aggregates, and > > >then arousing reflective acquiescence in them. > >L: So specific nature means here: consider what was learned with the >consideration of characteristic of each dhamma? KO: see above on explanation of specific nature > > >Com: Next, he should perfect the >preliminary portion of the wisdom born of meditation (pubbabhagabhavanapanna) by > > >developing the mundane kinds of full understanding through the discernment of >the specific and general characteristics of the aggregates, etc.22 To do so, he >should fully understand all internal and external phenomena without exception as > > >follows: "This is mere mentality-materiality (namarupamatta), which arises and >ceases according to conditions. There is here no agent or actor. It is >impermanent in the sense of not being after having been; suffering in the sense >of oppression by rise and fall; and non-self in the sense of being unsusceptible > > >to the exercise of mastery." Comprehending them in this way, he abandons >attachment to them, and helps others to do so as well. Entirely out of >compassion, he continues to help his fellow beings enter and reach maturity in >the three vehicles, assists them to achieve mastery over the jhanas, >deliverances, concentrations, attainments, and mundane direct knowledges, and >does not desist until he reaches the very peak of wisdom and all the >Buddha-qualities come within his grasp. > >The wisdom born of meditation may be divided into two groups. The first >comprises the mundane direct knowledges, together with their accessories; >namely, the knowledge of the modes of psychic power, the knowledge of the divine > > >ear-element, the knowledge of penetrating other minds, the knowledge of >recollecting past lives, the knowledge of the divine eye, the knowledge of >kammic retribution, and the knowledge of the future.23 The second comprises the >five purification -- purification of view, purification by overcoming doubt, >purification by knowledge and vision of what is and what is not the path, >purification by knowledge and vision of the way, and purification by knowledge >and vision. The first four of these are mundane, the last is supramundane. After > > >acquiring through study and interrogation a knowledge of the phenomena such as >the aggregates, etc., constituting the soil of wisdom, he should establish >himself in the two purifications constituting its roots, purification of virtue >and purification of mind, and then accomplish the five purifications just >mentioned which constitute the trunk of wisdom. Since the method for >accomplishing these, along with the analysis of their objective sphere, is >explained in complete detail in the Visuddhimagga, it should be understood in >the way given there.24 Only in that work the explanation of wisdom has come >down for beings seeking the enlightenment of disciples. But here, because it is >intended for the great bodhisattvas, it should be explained making compassion >and skilful means the forerunners. One further distinction must also be made: >here insight (vipassana) should be developed only as far as purification by >knowledge and vision of the way, without attaining purification by knowledge and > > >vision.25 >> > >L: Thanks Ken, this was very helpful. I am waiting for your reply to ponder more > >over that. > > >To me all 3 sources of wisom are still unclear. But in brief I think of them >now: >1. Sutta-maya panna: The knowledge that is based on learning. Just mere >knowledge of words and different classification. This is not reflection, but >only having now, got learned, the different Vibhangas and Scriptures. Just like >a school knowledge, but with yoniso manasikara, wise attention. >2. Cinta-maya panna: The knowledge that is born form wise examination or >reflection of what was learned. >3. Bhavana-maya panna: The knowledge born from applying what was learned and >reflected in life. reflecting thus: this dhatu is only a dhatu, it has its >characteristic now. > KO: to me cinta maya is just the more further development of sutta maya until one reach bhavana maya. Ken O #116828 From: Ken O Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:35 am Subject: Re: Nimitta (was [dsg] Re: Smell etc, inseparable rupas ashkenn2k Dear Rob E > >I am jumping in, because this is a topic that interests me a lot as well. It >seems that nimita is a sort of bridge perception on the way to direct seeing, as > >if, for instance, we wanted to see what a train was like going at high speed, >and we took a high-speed photo of the train. We can't see the train straight on, > >but we can look at the photo afterwards and it records pretty much the exact way > >the train appears while it is moving at such high speed. Well, it's not exactly >like seeing it directly, but it replicates a view of what it is "really like" >although stopped for our purposes. Or if one were to take a film of the train >going by and then play it back in slower motion to see how it works at that >speed. Anyway, seems like a decent analogy for nimita. Rather than just having a > >removed distant concept of what a dhamma is like, nimita should be a 'true >record' of what the dhamma is like, although 'recorded in concept' and 'played >back' after it has already passed away at high speed. That would be very useful >for having a closer understanding of the 'real dhamma' and how it behaves and >occurs. KO: all conditioned dhammas have nimittas even in nama and rupa level, only Nibbana does not have. I would said nama and rupa are the pixels (the atomic nimitta) while the conventional reality is the picture (the big nimitta) displayed by the TV or computer monitor are formed by the pixel. > >On the other hand, I don't especially like the idea that we don't have to worry >at all about whether we are dealing with nimittas or real direct seeing of >dhammas, almost dismissively, as though it were all the same. There is a sense >in which we can be assuaged and don't have to worry about indirect conceptual >seeing, as long as we use the word nimitta instead of concept, because the >nimitta is given to be that much closer to reality. It is almost as if we can >rest assured tha satipatthana is developing even though we don't really see. Can > >a nimitta be the object of sati? Can there be mindful seeing and clear knowing >of a concept, however much closer it may be to the real object? My understanding > >is that a concept cannot be the object of satipatthana, period. I will be happy >to hear comments to contradict this, or explain more how the 'bridge of nimitta' > >works to develop satipatthana, as it seems like both a bridge and a >contradiction to the idea of developing real seeing, and being able to get >beyond the world of concept. It seems like another example of using 'right >concept'as a bridge, but also as a substitute for direct seeing. > KO: if concept cannot be an object of satipatthana, then Buddha would not have taught breathing meditation or meditaiton of the foul, cementary meditation in the start of satipatthana suttas. Visud, Dispeller of delusion should not have written about such meditations either. Development of panna is never about concept vs reality, it is about understanding the nature of dhamma. It can be developed through, learning, studying, listening, thinking and examining. The text differentiate panna between mundane and supramundane and between mundame, those with the dispensation and those not with the dispensation. the text never said in mundane development of the path, there must be only dhamma and no concept. As long as one understand the three characteristics, it is satipathana. A simple example will be, it is the natue of wealth to be impermanent as it be loss through disasters, robbery or kings. it bring suffering as one become distress due to its loss, it has no self as one cannot bring it over to the next life. >The discussion below suggests that the nimitta is just as good as direct seeing >for the purposes of satipatthana. This still confuses me. KO: forget about nimitta, understand the nature of dhamma is more helpful and more impt. Forget about direct seeing, if one cannot even see at conventional level of the specific or general characteristics of dhamma, there is no way we could develop direct seeing. > >Here is the crux: > >PH: >I remember I heard Sayadaw U Silananda say that when there is >nimitta the reality has fallen away, but for the purpose of >satipatthana we can say it is still present. > >N: >Yes, we can still say that there is awareness of the present >object although it has just fallen away. KO: what is the present object of your mind now :-) conventional or direct. Even if it is a nimatta of a reality at conventional level or a concept, it does not matter to me as long as it helps me to develop understanding of the dhamma. Let me say this again, the text never said for mundane right understanding (except for vipassana nana level) the object must be a reality and never a concept, if there is i would have already quote you the text, but I cannot because I cannot find it anywhere. cheers Ken O #116829 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 8/15/2011 1:48:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > -------------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > It is clear to me that namas, both including mental qualities and > mental activities, are the result of a multiplicity of conditions among which > are moments of intention, some fully conscious but most subliminal. I doubt > that Abhidhamma and the commentaries dispute that. Certainly the Buddha did > not in the suttas. > ----------------------------------------------------------- I also understand that many moments of intention, and various other conditions, occur without conscious knowledge, and are more subliminal. The point to me is whether one is able to take stock of current conditions to some extent and whether intention is able to plot a course based on that assessment. ------------------------------------------------------ HCW: It seems to me clear that this happens all the time: a combination of intentional thinking, particularly planning, and intentional efforts at implementing one's plans. ---------------------------------------------------- That, and whether practice is able to be engaged in a systematic way, and whether such practice has a positive [kusala] impact if done without forceful attachment to results. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Again, I'd say "yes" and "yes", and I'd also say that the Buddha urged this! ------------------------------------------------ The practical import of such a distinction is the divide that we often find here, between the path being restricted to apprehension of arising life-moments with no definite or purposeful or systematic practice, and the idea that the path can be engaged much more systematically, even with the understanding that there is no control and that one is adapting constantly to changing conditions in order to 'plot a course.' I've always enjoyed the analogy of sailing a boat, although I am very bad at it myself. You can't control the wind or the waves, obviously, and if you want to get in a direction that is against the wind, you have to "tack," which means to use the wind direction as you find it to indirectly move the boat in the right direction. Because you understand and acknowledge the 'opposing wind,' you can adapt and utilize it to get where you need to go. I think life-conditions are like that too, and practice is like that too. One has the goal of increased development of the path in mind, but one cannot just grasp that goal and force it to take place. But one can practice within conditions and develop understanding gradually. There's no control, but there is intention and practice. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Yes, and a very good analogy! ---------------------------------------------- In fact, all the serious practitioners here, whether they are students of commentary or engage a meditation practice, are following a systematic path. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Certainly! --------------------------------------------- It's just a question of whether the path is one of understanding of Dhamma and everyday life without an additional practice, or whether one also applies the study of Dhamma in meditation. -------------------------------------------- HCW: In meditation, and in attempting ongoing mindfulness & introspection - especially in guarding the senses. ------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: I DO think that the > noble 8-fold path as taught by the Buddha in the suttas is at the > "macroscopic level," although like all "things" at that level is imputed upon a vast > array of far simpler, interrelated mental and physical phenomena - namas and > rupas. > ------------------------------------------------------------ I agree that the macroscopic goals and activities break down into namas and rupas. I don't think this stops us from engaging the macroscopic level though. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: That is the level we grasp most easily, but in acting at the macroscopic level, what actually is happening occurs at the microscopic level. An analogy from physics: Sitting on a chair actually involves interactions at the subatomic energy level. ---------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > My introspection displays intention as operating both subliminally > (often) and at the level of full awareness (at times, though less often). In > either case, it is conditioned and not self-causing. > ------------------------------------------------------------ I don't mean to overemphasize that which one is directly conscious of, though this is of course an important part of intention. I agree that intention is conditioned, and not self-causing. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't assume that all the perspectives expressed on DSG as > reflecting the content of Abhidhamma and the commentaries are free of personal > opinion. I am largely ignorant of the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentaries, > and that puts me in a position of not being able to tell what is fully > faithful reportage, what is personal view, and what is a mix. > --------------------------------------------------------- Well, I think what is clear is that the dsg view is a coherent and consistent one, emanating from a very specific interpretation of the commentaries to both sutta and Abhidhamma, and that such a view is reflected in some of the ideas in the commentaries that are not directly spoken of in the sutta pitaka. I don't think it's a matter of individual opinion, but of a specific movement within Theravada. ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: That "movement" isn't a disembodied force! ;-) It comes about from people, their beliefs, and their actions, especially thinking and teaching. ----------------------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. =================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116830 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:52 am Subject: Re: 3 sources of Panna. To Phil szmicio Hi Ken O, Does 40 meditation objects, are objects to samatha or vipassana development? > KO: bhavana is development. There are two types of bhavana in the texts, > samantha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. So it depends which bhavana you are > into. To say it is just vipassana bhavana then it is not in accordance to the > text. There are both mention in the commentaries, suttas and Abhidhamma text. L: So hearing on dana in the Texts and offering after that is samatha or vipassana developement? Why Buddha taught offering? Too develop more calmness in those who follow? What is a difference between concentration(samadhi) and samatha(calmness)? Best wishes Lukas #116831 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:38 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, The suttas do not support your "don't intentionally practice" un-orthodox approach. It is an inference, a logic, and to my knowledge in Theravada it came only from one person whose teacher did not even teach this! It is really questionable to take the Buddhas words, even when He said using IMPERATIVES or present-actives (rather than past-passives) and claim that He was talking in descriptive past-passive sense. With best wishes, Alex #116832 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:06 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- On Wed, 10/8/11, Robert E wrote: > > >>S: 1. No one believes that "anything physical is inconsequential except as an object of citta", > ... > R:>I am not sure about this. It seems that there are many many comments that suggest that physical action does not really exist, as all actions, people and objects are conceptual objects of mind, not actualities. I guess there may be a world of rupas, which include single individual qualities such as hardness and such, but such qualities are only experiential, not actually physical. > ... > S: There are only rupas. I don't understand what you mean when you suggest these are "only experiential, not actually physical." These are physical dhammas regardless of whether or not they are experienced. Well, again, it depends on how rupas are defined. I can imagine a world in which the experience side of things is divided into individual qualities which come in single packets, although I am not presently convinced that this is how experience actually takes place. But I cannot imagine a universe in which "hardnesses," "nutritions," and "colors" float around unattached to the physical objects that you refer to as concepts. It seems to me that a disassociated "color" or "hardness" that is not attached to a tree or a table is much more of a concept than the other way around. Do such qualities ever show up by themselves, one at a time, without a physical object to attach themselves to? Has anyone ever experienced "hardness" without "smoothness" without "texture," without whatever else the finger nerves pick up when they touch? In 'real life' as we know it, which is taken as delusion in the nama-rupa philosophy, we apprehend these qualities as part of a whole. We never experience them as isolated rupas. But let's say that they are actually processed one at a time, completely separately from each other, at lightning speed, and then the mind stitches them together conceptually to form an image of a "table." Let's say it does happen that way. Does that mean that there is no physical table in the world, or only that we don't perceive it in "wholes" but in separate qualities? Is there no table because we experience rupa-moments one at a time? Or are you saying that there *is* a table, but for *us* it is a concept, because we don't experience it as a whole, but only by putting the pieces together conceptually. One of the issues which I have never been able to nail down is whether the adherents of this philosophy believe that physical reality exists in wholes, but only as the separate qualities that are defined as rupas, or if you are just saying that it is the way *we* experience physical objects. You say that rupas exist whether we experience them or not. That means they are physical. Well, in that case, do they exist they way they are defined experientially, as separate qualities that exist independently of each other, or in their own existence when we don't experience them do they exist as wholes? If the former, then you are stuck with an objective physical universe, independent of perception, that contains "hardness" hanging around somewhere and "color" floating around nearby, in some kind of single-quality soup. I am sure you don't believe that such a thing exists, and that this is what physical reality is really like when concepts are not in play, but then the rupas that exist without us are not the same as the ones that exist in our perception. Are there whole objects in the world, but only single qualities in our perception? Or what indeed is the objective existence of what we are referring to as a "rupa?" It would settle the issue and make a lot of sense to say that "yes, physical whole objects such as tables and bodies *do* exist in the physical universe, but the nature of sentient beings is such that we only apprehend one perceivable quality at a time. And that perceivable object of perception, such as hardness, color, etc., is called a rupa." But I am not sure whether you would agree with that. That would mean that rupas do *not* exist when we don't perceive them, that they are units of physical perception, but that objects such as tables *do* exist when we don't perceive them. > It's true that what we refer to as actions such as postures, people and objects are conceptual objects of the mind. However, without the physical rupas and namas involved, there'd be no concepts. So what is a real rupa, and how does it relate or contribute to the creation of an image of a "table" and what is the real existence of the table, leaving our concepts aside. Does it exist? And how does the rupa exist? Is it indeed tangible, physical, concrete, self-existent, and if so, what is it? Where does "hardness" live when we're not "touching" it as tactile object? I have an additional issue with rupas which I'll mention parenthetically - I'm not sure that "hardness," "color" etc. are actual qualities that can exist all by themselves. They seem to me to be more qualities of rupas, rather than rupas themselves, but as I know that is off the rails, I'll save it for another time. > >It is true we only experience anything through the senses, including action, objects, etc., but there is a dividing line I think, between those who believe that physical bodies are in fact really there, and those who really think there are only experiences of physical qualities, but no bodies or objects actually being apprehended, and that such are only extrapolations of experiential moments. > .... > S: Let's take 'the physical bodies" you refer to. Which doorway are these experienced through? Well that is a good question. Again, I think it is a conceptual breakdown of objects as we experience them in "daily life" to separate them into individual qualities that are perceived through individual doorways. It is certainly true that visible object is not the same as 'heard object' and that they occur through distinct doorways, but is it really so that these two universes cannot be experienced at the same time, and is it really true that there is a single-moment breakdown of each of these objects that has distinct length of time and qualities that are objectively definable? The idea that this is the way things take place, in definable discrete objective units of separate senses that occur one at a time, is a philosophical premise. It is based on the idea that a single citta or act-of-consciousness occurs discretely one at a time, and that they only make peripheral contact and occur in orderly succession. This again, is a conceptual, or philosophical premise, and I am not saying it is incorrect, but it is also not proven, and it is not experienced by any of us to be so, as we cannot perceive momentary cittas individually. When you say 'which doorway is the body perceived through," you are starting from this premise, and based on this premise, you are saying that the body cannot exist as such, but must actually exist only as individual rupas. But this is a self-fulfilling premise, not a proof. Of course, if you think it is correct, you will base your understanding on this premise, but it is still not a proof of whether or not the body exists as such. In actual experience as we know it, which you would take as a delusory concept, the body is what we apprehend through our senses and mind, leaving aside the process by which it may be assembled. If individual rupas such as hardness and light were floating separately in meta-space, it would be hard to understand how the body remains organized for the senses as it does. I can run my hand down my arm and eventually reach my shoulder. If I am poked in the eye, my eye hurts and I grab my eye. Those structures appear to exist very coherently, not randomly, and it is the rupas that are supposed to be separate and more real in fact, that actually seem much more random and conceptually composed. We don't find them that way, they don't seem to occur that way, and there is no one on the planet - that we know of - who is capable of perceiving them that way. So it is philosophy, a conceptual position, and a matter of faith that the this very definite interpretation of the commentaries is indeed the correct one. Buddha does not say this. Yes, he distinguishes between the senses and the objects that are apprehended by the senses, but he does not say that they cannot be apprehended at the same time, that they do not apprehend the same object-in-the-world by their separate means, or that they are not actually apprehending aspects of a real, whole object that has independent existence in-the-world. So this is a commentarial, or sub-commentarial view that is extrapolated from the words of the Buddha. I think it would be at least plausible to say that "the body does exist as a whole, but for us it is a concept because we can't perceive it as a whole, only in momentary aspects through the 6 doorways; therefore our way of apprehending the body which exists in the physical world independent of us, is to apprehend one individual rupa at a time through one of the individual sense doors, and then 'reconstruct' the actual physical worldly object through conceptual stitching together of the various rupas we have apprehended and stored through concept, nimitta and sanna, which can see which rupas correspond to which parts of the object and conceptually reconstruct them." I think that there are many students of the Abhidhamma and commentaries that would take that less-radical view. It is a more radical theory, and one less difficult to defend except by faith in the philosophy of the subcommentarial interpretive schema, to say that the object-in-the-world is *only* a concept and has no independent physical existence other than as individual single rupas, in accordance with our limited capability of apprehending them as such. I will take up the second part of the post in a separate message, as this is getting long and I have to take a break out "in the world" according to my householder duties and to take care of my conventional body [go jogging and then go shopping on the way back.] Thanks for a challenging and engaging dialogue. BTW, my shopping trip reminded me of our common interest in green tea. I am sad to report that the radiation spill in Japan irradiated the normal supply of the high-grade sencha that my local specialty tea shop normally stocks and I can only get the lower-grade sencha from Okabe - no offense to Okabe. I have been drinking this sencha for 15 years and its the first time it's not been available - a green tea "attachment" to be sure. I am also sorry for the people of the region where the good sencha comes from. It is just one global example of the impact of the tsunami and its aftermath. I'll have to make do with the sencha-Okabe for now. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #116833 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:59 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Hello RobertE, KenH, all, >RE: Does that mean that there is no physical table in the world, or >only that we don't perceive it in "wholes" but in separate >qualities? Is there no table because we experience rupa-moments one >at a time? >=============================================================== When you are hungry, you go grab food to eat. When you are thirsty you go and drink water like everyone else. You look at a monitor, which is an external object. When you walk, you are careful to exit through the door rather than a window, or hit the wall. You sit on a chair, another external object. No matter about abstract philosophical beliefs that are just talk, we still use the same cyber space and behave like the external world of wholes does exist. What Alex writes here, you can read. SO no solipsism. No matter what a person says, s/he behaves like someone who accepts existence of matter and wholes. Practically, external "conceptual" objects still are and you have to use them. It is only talk about "concepts don't exist. They have no characteristics". No characteristics, huh? Well why do you use one object for one thing (ex: spoon) and another object (ex: fork) for another purpose? Aren't they both supposed to be undifferentiated and non-existent things with no characteristics? What is the use of philosophy that gets refuted through the day? With best wishes, Alex #116834 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:45 am Subject: When 7 becomes 14... bhikkhu5 Friends: How are there Fourteen Links to Awakening? The Blessed Buddha once said: There is awareness of all internal states, & awareness of all external states. Both kinds of awareness are leading to Enlightenment ( sati-sambojjhanga). There is investigation of both all internal states, and of all external states. Both these investigations are links to Enlightenment ( vicaya-sambojjhanga). There is energy of body (strength), and energy of the mind (enthusiasm). Both kinds of energy are leading to Enlightenment ( viriya-sambojjhanga). There is joy associated with thinking, and there is joy without any thinking. Both kinds of joy are links leading to Enlightenment ( pti-sambojjhanga). There is tranquillity of the body, and there is tranquillity of the mind. Both these calms are links to Enlightenment ( passaddhi-sambojjhanga). There is concentration during thinking and concentration without thinking. Both concentrations are links to Enlightenment ( samdhi-sambojjhanga). There is equanimity both regarding internal states and external states. Both these kinds are links to Enlightenment ( upekkh-sambojjhanga). This can only a Buddha, or a true disciple of a Buddha see, and explain... Comments: Awareness of all internal mental states is the most important, and highest. Investigation of all internal mental states is the primary, and most fruitful. Energy of the mind is the most advantageous, effective, and most enabling. Joy without any thinking is the most rapturous, ecstatic, and all-pervading. Tranquillity of the mind is the deepest, most calm, serene, and imperturbable. Concentration without any thinking is the most one-pointed and absorbed. Equanimity regarding internal mental states is the best guard and protection. <....> Sources (edited extracts): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikya. Book [V: 111] 46: Links. 52: A way of Explaining... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #116835 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:57 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. This is Pt. 2 of my response. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > >R:Do the experiential moments reveal real bodies and objects, brains, eyes, hands and cars, or do experiential moments ultimately reveal that these never really existed except as concepts? > .... > S: Again, if they are not concepts, which door way are "real bodies" and "brains" experienced through? Can you see 'brain' or touch it? In conventional terms of course we can. And it remains to be seen if such are mere concepts, or whether they are wholes that are apprehended through individual rupas. Of course on some level all existence breaks down and breaks into smaller discernible levels. But it is not clear that it breaks down into final monads that do not themselves dissolve upon inspection, the view that I always thought the Buddha espoused in his talks on anicca. > .... > R:>I think it is clear for those who believe the latter that this is the reason that no emphasis is put on taking meritorious actions in the world, going into seclusion except into "mental seclusion" as has been said many times, and that such practices as meditation and other physical regimens can have no spiritual effect or content, because they are acting on an illusory conceptual realm, rather than really affecting the experiential realm that does affect the development of panna, etc. > .... > S: Oh, what a red flag you've raised:-) The first question, I think, is whether "practices such as meditation and other physical regimens" have a spiritual content or effect, or have no spiritual content or effect. Then on to other meritorious actions... Do purposeful physical and mental activities have a positive effect on spiritual development? I think they do. I don't think of it as self-based, but of being volition-based. Buddha says "strive unceasingly" or the equivalent, and this makes an impression on the listener/reader. This causes volition to arise and keep re-arising to develop the path. No self involved. > Here are the "Meritorious Actions" as listed in Nyantiloka's Buddhist Dict: > > pu~n~na-kiriya-vatthu > > 'bases of meritorious action'. > > In the suttas, 3 are mentioned > > consisting of giving (liberality; daana-maya-p.), > > of morality (siila-maya-p.) and > > of mental development (meditation; bhaavanaa-maya-p.). > > See D.33; It.60; expl. in A.VIII.36. > > Commentaries have a list of ten (dasa p.) which is very popular in Buddhist countries: > > (1)-(3) as above, > > (4) reverence (apaciti), > > (5) service (veyyaavacca), > > (6) transference of merit (pattaanuppadaana), > > (7) rejoicing in others' merit (abbhaanumodana), > > (8) expounding the Doctrine (desanaa), > > (9) listening to the Doctrine (savana), > > (10) straightening one's right views (rectification of views; ditthujukamma). - > > Expl. in Atthasālini Tr. 209ff. > .... > S: True, no mention of "going into seclusion" here. Yet it is mentioned frequently in the suttas - even though it didn't make the "top ten" list of the commentaries. :-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - #116836 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:39 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- On Tue, 16/8/11, truth_aerator wrote: >The suttas do not support your "don't intentionally practice" un-orthodox approach. .... S: The "orthodox" Theravada teachings as preserved by the Mahavihara, including the Abhidhamma and ancient Pali commentaries and including the Suttas, all point to the Truths, beginning with the understanding of conditioned dhammas, of the khandhas, as being anicca, dukkha and anatta. Now, if there has been sufficient wise consideration, there may be the development of such understanding, but there is never any person to "intentionally practice". Furthermore, "Intention" or cetana cetasika was never given by the Buddha in the suttas or any other part of the Theravada teachings as a Path Factor. ... >It is really questionable to take the Buddhas words, even when He said using IMPERATIVES or present-actives (rather than past-passives) and claim that He was talking in descriptive past-passive sense. .... S: Whatever/wherever we read the Buddha's teachings, it is an urging of insight into the Four Noble Truths that is being made. Such insight is the understanding that there is no person, no traveller involved: Vis. XVI: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." Metta Sarah ======= #116837 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Nimitta (was [dsg] Re: Smell etc, inseparable rupas sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Sun, 14/8/11, philip wrote: >Sarah talked about a gradation beteeen concept and reality, nimitta is closer to reality thsn concept but is akin to concept. (Right, Sarah?) .... S: What I was probably saying was that the more understanding develops, the closer it comes to directly understanding the realities. In the beginning, it is consideration about concepts of dhammas (pariyatti), but having heard and considered a lot about such dhammas, now there can be the direct understanding of the characteristics of those dhammas directly. Through the mind door, this will always be the nimitta of dhammas. People would like to know whether the nimitta is a concept or a reality, but all we can say is that it is the nimitta of a reality, sankhara nimitta. (In other contexts, such as the development of samatha and attainment of jhanas, it is the nimitta of a concept that is referred to.) I'm pretty sure I didn't say that sankhara nimitta is "akin to concept". ... >I agree with Lodewijk, nimitta makes it easier for me to have confidence about detachment, seems more feasible to have awareness of this nimitta than of one fleeting dhamma, one kalapa, for example and since there is more confidrnce about awareness, more confidence about possibility of detachment. .... S: I'd just like to stress that when there's awareness of a dhamma, of a characteristic of a dhamma, there's no thought or concern about whether it's a nimitta, 'one fleeting dhamma' or anything else. It is just the understanding of that dhamma. In fact, as we know, there are multiple mind-door processes and even at stages of insight, it has to be the nimitta of dhamma which is the object of insight. Strictly speaking, the dhamma itself has fallen away. Great qus and points you're raising and I appreciate the way you relate the qus and Dhamma to daily life too. Metta Sarah ===== #116838 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anagarika's precepts sarahprocter... Hi Lukas, --- On Sat, 13/8/11, Lukas wrote: >Now I am back Poland. I will write a comprehensive trip raport from my journey and post in on the DSG. ... S: I'll look forward to it! Judging by your recent helpful posts, quotes and comments, it seems that the Retreat and all the travel hardship inspired you:-)) Really, you have a lot of appreciation that right understanding and wise consideration can occur anywhere, anytime.... regardless of those worldly conditions! Metta Sarah ===== #116839 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! sarahprocter... Hi Ken H & Pt (& Han), --- On Sat, 13/8/11, Ken H wrote: >KH: Again that's what I used to think. I still do! :-) But I am not entirely sure. It would mean that virati could take a dhamma as its object. But can it? .... S: There are different kinds/levels of virati, but when it (right speech/action/livelihood) arises as a path factor with the other path factors, it must have the same object, a dhamma. Likewise, when the virati factors arise with the lokuttara magga citta, the object must be nibbana. Not easy to understand, I know. Han once gave an interesting quote on this topic. I forget now whether or not I agreed with it. Do you remember Han? Do you have anything extra to add? I miss you, Partner! (Btw, how are you and your wife keeping these days?) ---------------------------------- > Pt: Anyway, I think for our discussion, the most difficult is the case three in my list - when the object of citta is a concept, with panna and virati cetasikas. >In the quote that Sarah gave from ACMA (thanks Sarah), that'd be abstention due to undertaking the precepts. -------------------- >KH: I think that quote was about kusala citta without panna, not with panna. .... S: There must be a level of panna which understands the value of abstaining from harming and so on, not just blindly following what one has been instructed to follow. For example, now if a mosquito flies around, there is likely to be abstaining from harming it because of an understanding of the value of such abstention. It is samatha, calm, at such moments of kusala with panna. The object is a concept. Pt, this is the earlier post I was referring to on the distinction between blindly following precepts and undertaking restraint wisely: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/44853 ------------ > Pt: In that light, the comments that Phil usually makes in terms of precepts for the sake of precepts, rather than satipatthana, seem correct to me, in that they are still kusala. ----------- S: Again, when it is still kusala. Only panna will know! ... >KH: I might delay my comments until we have sorted out the question of panna arising with concepts. I don't think it can. (Unless, of course, they are concepts of dhammas - as in pariyatti.) .... S: Ken, remember panna arises in the development of samatha and the development of pariyatti/patipatti. So, now, if there is wise reflection on abstaining from harming beings, for example, it is samatha with panna. The object is a concept. All kinds of samatha bhavana up to jhana cittas develop with panna. Concepts are nearly always the objects. Metta Sarah ======= #116840 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:40 pm Subject: Re: Anagarika's precepts szmicio Dear Sarah, > >Now I am back Poland. I will write a comprehensive trip raport from my journey and post in on the DSG. > ... > S: I'll look forward to it! Judging by your recent helpful posts, quotes and comments, it seems that the Retreat and all the travel hardship inspired you:-)) L: It wasn't hard too much. I used to pain. You're helpful post on attha lokiyadhamma was a great support. Everywhere is misery, no matter we are at home, or struggling with cold sleeping at a bench. Doesn't matter. > Really, you have a lot of appreciation that right understanding and wise consideration can occur anywhere, anytime.... regardless of those worldly conditions! L: Due to saddha, right and wise devotion, that is basis for all kusalas. Without saddha we are not able to develop more and more right understanding. At the retreat I realized that is not a place or favourable conditions that make understanding to arise. It is learning, reading more, and leaving it all to conditions. We can learn that all that appears is not ours, out of control, conditioned. Kusala thinks, akusala thinks AS says. When akusala thinking appear we are susceptible to take it all for mine. We cannot change akusala for kusala. Gradually we can have more and more understanding of kamma and vipaka. I think kamma and vipaka are known directly with the second vipassana ~nana. I always appreciated your reminders on present moment. Best wishes Lukas #116841 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 2 kinds of development nilovg Dear Lukas and Ken O, Ken O, you have good remarks, but these weeks I am short of time and cannot provide you with texts. Op 15-aug-2011, om 16:55 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > L: So a samatha is not just kusala citta without panna of samatha? ----- N: samatha is a way of mental development and thus it needs pa~n~naa, understanding of what samatha is, how it is developed. If one just follows teachers blindly, just sits and concentrates without any understanding there could be wrong concentration, micchaa samaadhi. ------- > > L: When vipassana arises, there is panna of vipassana and the panna > of samatha? ------- Insight knowledge is vipassanaa pa~n~naa, understanding of naama and ruupa. It is different from pa~n~naa of the development of samatha. ------- > > L: Does the object of kusala citta in samatha is a nimitta of an > one meditation object? ------ N: As Sarah just explained, these are mostly nimittas. ----- > > L: Can mere panna of vipassana know if citta is kusala and akusala > and the way to develop more of kusala? ------ N: Before the first stage of tender insight there is no precise understanding of kusala and akusala, they are not known as just conditioned naamas. When stages of insight have been reached there will be more understanding of any reality that appears, but the aim is not developing more kusala, but understanding leading to eradication of defilements. Remember the simile of the man who builds a wall, and adds brick after brick. He accumulates. The breaking down the wall is compared to reaching the end of accumulation and rebirth. As to clear understanding of kusala and akusala: after the third stage of tender insight it is possible to take for kusala what is a defilement. One may cling to the assurance gained by insight and the calm, and clinging to such objects are imperfections of insight. -------- > > > Pa~n~naa of the level of vipassanaa understands the > characteristic of > > the reality appearing at the present moment, and it will realize its > > nature of impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. Eventually when > > enlightenment is attained pa~n~naa will eradicate latent tendencies > > of defilements. > > ------ > > L:So it will realize the samannalakhhana of each dhamma, but will > it also realize the sabhavalakkhana of realities? ------ N: First the specific characteristics will be discerned more clearly and as insight proceeds, the attention is turned towards the general characteristics. See the Visuddhimagga. Realities will be clearly seen as impermanent, dukkha, anattaa. This is not theoretical knowledge, it pertains to the present reality that appears. ------- > > > > N: Jhaana is a level of highly developed samatha. However, at the > > moment of enlightenment lokuttara cittas arise that have calm of the > > level of at least the first stage of jhaana. Then nibbaana is the > > object they experience. Those who have developed samatha and > > vipassanaa can have lokuttara cittas with jhaana of higher stages. > > ------ > > L: I've heard that jhana not necessrily arise with lokuttara citta, > so when the lokuttara citta arises is it obligatory supported with > the jhana? -------- N: Also those who have not developed samatha to the stage of jhaana, thus those who are people with dry insight, still have lokuttara cittas accompanied by jhaanafactors of the strength of the first stage of jhaana. This is by conditions, because nibbaana is the object. ------ > > L: In the jhana that was taught by the Buddha, the right > understanding that knows the characteristics of realities must be > present to achieve and sustain jhana? ------- N: The Buddha taught to those who had already developed jhaana how this attainment could be more fruitful: seeing it as anattaa. The aim was not to sustain jhaana, but to see it as only a conditioned reality. One should not cling to it. -------- Nina. > > #116842 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:21 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Alex) - In a message dated 8/16/2011 3:39:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear Alex, --- On Tue, 16/8/11, truth_aerator wrote: >The suttas do not support your "don't intentionally practice" un-orthodox approach. .... S: The "orthodox" Theravada teachings as preserved by the Mahavihara, including the Abhidhamma and ancient Pali commentaries and including the Suttas, all point to the Truths, beginning with the understanding of conditioned dhammas, of the khandhas, as being anicca, dukkha and anatta. Now, if there has been sufficient wise consideration, there may be the development of such understanding, but there is never any person to "intentionally practice". -------------------------------------------------- HCW: There is no single reality that is "a person" at all, and hence none that does anything at all. What is called "a person" is a (mentally delineated) collection of interrelated, mental and physical phenomena, not all simultaneous, conventionally referred to and falsely thought of as a single thing. It is quite analogous to a whirlpool in a river: Where (and when) the whirlpool begins and ends is, when really looked into, meaningless because ungraspable. It is not separate from the rest of the river, and there is nothing to it other than the water-in-motion that is it's basis, and with spatial and temporal boundaries not to be found, and, so, as an individual thing, it is merely a matter of convention. And yet it is not baseless. So, in reality, there is no person as a genuine and single entity who does anything, including intentionally practice, but there IS intentional practice. There are lots of instances of intention that result in physical and mental conditions, a.k.a. "actions". This includes "intentional practice". ----------------------------------------------- Furthermore, "Intention" or cetana cetasika was never given by the Buddha in the suttas or any other part of the Theravada teachings as a Path Factor. --------------------------------------------- HCW: I have no argument there! --------------------------------------------- ... >It is really questionable to take the Buddhas words, even when He said using IMPERATIVES or present-actives (rather than past-passives) and claim that He was talking in descriptive past-passive sense. .... S: Whatever/wherever we read the Buddha's teachings, it is an urging of insight into the Four Noble Truths that is being made. Such insight is the understanding that there is no person, no traveller involved: Vis. XVI: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." --------------------------------------------- HCW: Quite so. However, what is this "urging of insight into the Four Noble Truths that is being made"? The urging is intended to result in intentional action! It is a suggesting and reminder to intentionally turn attention and thoughts in that direction. ------------------------------------------------------- Metta Sarah ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116843 From: Ken O Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 3 sources of Panna. To Phil ashkenn2k Dear Lukas >Does 40 meditation objects, are objects to samatha or vipassana development? KO: i should ask do you know what is samatha development. Samatha is not simply just doing concentration exercise because concentration exercise only leads to jhanas that leads to rebirth to rupa and arupa planes and not lead to Nibbana. Samatha must be accompanied by clear comprehension (panna) of dhamma in order to be used as a basis of insight. Regarding objects, I should ask you again, do you mean vipassana development are all nama and rupas, concept cannot be used? To understand vipassana one must understand the defination of panna and one must understand the nature of object, the nature of citta and the relationship among them. Panna cannot say hey because you are a concept, I cannot develop understanding of dhamma. this means reading and listening cannot help to develop panna because they are all concepts. > >> KO: bhavana is development. There are two types of bhavana in the texts, >> samantha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. So it depends which bhavana you are >> into. To say it is just vipassana bhavana then it is not in accordance to the >> >> >> text. There are both mention in the commentaries, suttas and Abhidhamma >>text. >> > >L: So hearing on dana in the Texts and offering after that is samatha or >vipassana developement? Why Buddha taught offering? Too develop more calmness in > >those who follow? KO: dana is a kusala deed. It is helpful to both development. Not just dana, all kusala are helpful to the development to both. Buddha taught offering or dana for a few reasons i. it leads to good rebirth, ii it could used as a concentration object to attain access absorption which could be used as a basis of insight iii. it benefit others iv. It assist virtue development. iv. if dana arise with panna, it beomce a factor to more development of panna. As one when gives, one could reflect, there is no that gives, or the there is no ownership of wealth. All kusala develop calmness but calmness is not the objective of samadhi. Samadhi is about concentration, about focusing the mind on an object so that one could withdraw from sensual pleasure. Calmness is the one of the positive returns of samadhi but it is not samadhi. Samadhi is part of samantha bhavana but it is not samantha. Samantha development needs both samadhi and panna. Ken O > >What is a difference between concentration(samadhi) and samatha(calmness)? > >Best wishes >Lukas > > > #116844 From: Ken O Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 2 kinds of development ashkenn2k Dear Nina >> >> L: When vipassana arises, there is panna of vipassana and the panna >> of samatha? >------- >Insight knowledge is vipassanaa pa~n~naa, understanding of naama and >ruupa. It is different from pa~n~naa of the development of samatha. >------- KO: this i differ because the text did not say that. The text only make the distinction of panna is those within the dispensation and those out of the dispensation. Those panna that is out of the dispensation only lead to good rebirth while those within enable enlightenment. development of samatha needs clear comphrension (panna) which is described in the commentary of satipatthana and Fruits of Reclusehip. Both samantha bhavana and vipassana bhavana all must end up at vipassana nana. Vipassana bhavana is the direct one till this stage of vipassana nana while samantha bhavana is used as basis of insight to reach vipassana nana. >> >> L: Does the object of kusala citta in samatha is a nimitta of an >> one meditation object? >------ >N: As Sarah just explained, these are mostly nimittas. >----- KO: all dhammas are nimittas until one reach Nibbana. Even those in vipassana nana, is also nimittas >> >> L: Can mere panna of vipassana know if citta is kusala and akusala >> and the way to develop more of kusala? >------ >N: Before the first stage of tender insight there is no precise >understanding of kusala and akusala, they are not known as just >conditioned naamas. When stages of insight have been reached there >will be more understanding of any reality that appears, but the aim >is not developing more kusala, but understanding leading to >eradication of defilements. Remember the simile of the man who builds >a wall, and adds brick after brick. He accumulates. The breaking down >the wall is compared to reaching the end of accumulation and rebirth. >As to clear understanding of kusala and akusala: after the third >stage of tender insight it is possible to take for kusala what is a >defilement. One may cling to the assurance gained by insight and the >calm, and clinging to such objects are imperfections of insight. >-------- KO: I do not think that is the description of the tender stage of insight as described by you, rather the text especially Visud, the first stage of tender insight is the knowledge of rise and fall (I). According to to Visud Chapter XVIII pg 605, para no 2 <> Chapter XX pg 1 <> - my notes - this is about comprehension knowledge by groups Under this chapter, pg 652 para 93 <> <> para 104 <> My notes - under this stage, it is still mundane stage and there are ten imperfections that could cause one to fall back from insight. Once one cross over this to Knowldge of Rise and Fall (II)), there is no more turning back, one will reach enlightement as stream entrant. Under the treatise of paramis, a bodhisattva development of understanding must stop at Knowledge of Rise and Fall (1). Ken O #116845 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:43 am Subject: Re: 3 sources of Panna. To Phil szmicio Hi Ken O, I still have this question: In a moments of vipassana ~nana is there panna of level of samatha, that knows citta is kusala and the way to develop more kusala? I always thought that knowing 4 jatis of citta is vipassana function. It clearly knows the citta is kusala, akusala, vipaka and kiriya. Best wishes Lukas > KO: i should ask do you know what is samatha development. Samatha is not > simply just doing concentration exercise because concentration exercise only > leads to jhanas that leads to rebirth to rupa and arupa planes and not lead > to Nibbana. Samatha must be accompanied by clear comprehension (panna) of > dhamma in order to be used as a basis of insight. > > Regarding objects, I should ask you again, do you mean vipassana development are > all nama and rupas, concept cannot be used? To understand vipassana one must > understand the defination of panna and one must understand the nature of object, > the nature of citta and the relationship among them. Panna cannot say hey > because you are a concept, I cannot develop understanding of dhamma. this means > reading and listening cannot help to develop panna because they are all > concepts. #116846 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:55 am Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! kenhowardau Hi Sarah and Pt, ------------- <. . .> > S: There are different kinds/levels of virati, but when it (right speech/action/livelihood) arises as a path factor with the other path factors, it must have the same object, a dhamma. Likewise, when the virati factors arise with the lokuttara magga citta, the object must be nibbana. > Not easy to understand, I know. > Han once gave an interesting quote on this topic. I forget now whether or not I agreed with it. Do you remember Han? Do you have anything extra to add? -------------- KH: I would like to hear Han's quote too, but while we are waiting I might expand on one of my theories. :-) Don't worry; it's not so much a theory as another way of saying something we already agree on. The kusala cittas of dana and sila experience concepts of sentient beings, but without wrong view (without belief in the ultimate reality of a sentient being). Not only is there no wrong view at those times, there is no ignorance (which turns away from ultimate reality). We all know that. So how does it work? How can we have a concept of something without believing it really exists (or without excluding the possibility that something very different really does exist)? It works by having a concept of a paramattha dhamma! Even in mildly akusala cittas (when there is ignorance without wrong view) our concepts of sentient beings are not concepts of sukkha, icca and atta, are they? There is at those times an unspoken recognition that we are talking about fleeting, changeable states of consciousness. So when you tell an ordinary person that rites and rituals (the physical action of giving a gift, for example) are ultimately ineffectual he knows what you mean. He knows there are ultimately fleeting states of consciousness, he knows it is virtually impossible to tell anyone's real state of consciousness at any given time, and he knows it is impossible to create generosity (etc) by ritual activity. So I think it is very common for people to have concepts of another, greater, reality. Even if they don't know they are having them. -------------------- <. . .> >KH: I might delay my comments until we have sorted out the question of panna arising with concepts. I don't think it can. (Unless, of course, they are concepts of dhammas - as in pariyatti.) .... S: Ken, remember panna arises in the development of samatha and the development of pariyatti/patipatti. So, now, if there is wise reflection on abstaining from harming beings, for example, it is samatha with panna. The object is a concept. All kinds of samatha bhavana up to jhana cittas develop with panna. Concepts are nearly always the objects. -------------------- KH: Yes, but if we closely examine those concepts they are not of lasting states. They are of fleeting states. Even uninstructed people know that sentient beings do not remain the same. They know a person can be generous one moment and stingy the next. (And, most of the time, at various stages in between.) So I am suggesting that all of us - Dhamma students and non-Dhamma students alike - spend most of our days having vague concepts of an ultimate, fleeting, reality. Even if we don't know exactly what it is. Ken H #116848 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:38 am Subject: Buddhas instruction in the suttas truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: The "orthodox" Theravada teachings as preserved by the >Mahavihara, including the Abhidhamma and ancient Pali commentaries >and including the Suttas, all point to the Truths, beginning with >the understanding of conditioned dhammas, of the khandhas, as being >anicca, dukkha and anatta. >Furthermore, "Intention" or cetana cetasika was never given by the >Buddha in the suttas or any other part of the Theravada teachings as >a Path Factor. >================================================= And they *do* teach intentional, energetic and willful development. What about viriya (Energy) ? What about 4 iddhipadas and 4 right efforts? "Bhikkhus, those who have neglected the four bases for spiritual power have neglected the noble path leading to the complete destruction of suffering. Those who have undertaken the four bases for spiritual power have undertaken the noble path leading to the complete destruction of suffering. "What four? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the basis for spiritual power that possesses concentration due to desire and volitional forces of striving. He develops the basis for spiritual power that possesses concentration due to energy concentration due to mind concentration due to investigation and volitional forces of striving. - SN 51.2 "And what, bhikkhus, is right effort? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu generates desire for the non-arising of unarisen evil unwholesome states; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. He generates desire for the abandoning of arisen evil unwholesome states. He generates desire for the arising of unarisen wholesome states.He generates desire for the maintenance of arisen wholesome states, for their non-decline, increase, expansion, and fulfilment by development; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. This is called right effort." - SN45.8 These 2 suttas are from Bhikkhu Bodhi SN book. What about Buddha's recomendation about the kind of effort required for us, (not just the Buddha). "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves, [thinking,] "Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence."' That's how you should train yourselves." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.005.than.html "Just as a strong man, seizing a weaker man by the head or the throat or the shoulders, would beat him down, constrain, and crush him; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts - imbued with desire, aversion or delusion - still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then - with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth - he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As - with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth - he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html The suttas do not seem to imply that one just let things happen, strong effort is needed. With best wishes, Alex #116849 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:12 am Subject: The Blessed One! bhikkhu5 Friends: Supreme Master was the Buddha! It was through understanding, that the Blessed One discovered the Dhamma! It was through compassion, that he taught it to the multitude of beings. It was through understanding, that he felt disillusion with the rebirth round. It was through compassion, that he bore it, while learning to liberate others. It was through understanding, that he fully understood others' suffering, It was through compassion, that he undertook to counteract this misery. It was through understanding, that he himself crossed over to Nibbna! It was through compassion, that he brought other beings across also... It was through compassion, that he practised & taught no-cruelty to others. It was through understanding, that he himself was fearless of all others. It was through compassion, that he became this world's only real helper. It was through understanding, that he became his own absolute helper. It was through compassion, that he was humble and gentle as a Bodhisatta. It was through understanding, that he gained majestic dignity as a Buddha. It was through compassion, that he helped all beings as a safeguarding father. It was through understanding, that he remained detached from all beings. It was through understanding, that his mind was detached from all states. For just as the Blessed One's compassion was without sentimental fondness so was his supreme understanding free from the concepts of "I" and "mine"... Vism. Comm: Pm. 192-93 <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #116850 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:15 pm Subject: KENs theories: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > KH: Yes, but if we closely examine those concepts they are not of lasting states. They are of fleeting states. Even uninstructed people know that sentient beings do not remain the same. They know a person can be generous one moment and stingy the next. (And, most of the time, at various stages in between.) > > So I am suggesting that all of us - Dhamma students and non-Dhamma students alike - spend most of our days having vague concepts of an ultimate, fleeting, reality. Even if we don't know exactly what it is. > > Ken H Dear KenH so even those who haven't heard the Buddhas teaching have vague insight into paramattha dhamma and anicca? People who strongly believe in an eternal soul, for instance, at the moments they are truly generous, are having some conceptual understanding of paramattha? I should make a page of Kenh quotes that I disagree with for general edification. Robert "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." - T H Huxley > #116851 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:20 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, all, > > The suttas do not support your "don't intentionally practice" un-orthodox approach. It is an inference, a logic, and to my knowledge in Theravada it came only from one person whose teacher did not even teach this! > > Dear Alex and do you think there is anyone who can wish kusala into being. Just what did teh Buddha mean by right effort? Do you think there is something other than elements arising and ceasing - billions in an instant . Which ones could decide to have 'right effort" One might think right effort is deciding to try very hard to stop akusala arising but that is just wrong view assisting wrong effort to arise. It is when one understands what elements really are- by proper listening and study and contemplation- that right view aligned with effort has a chance to arise.. Robert #116852 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:58 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Howard, --- On Mon, 15/8/11, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >N: wanting to add something. A long time ago I mentioned to you Ven. Dhammanando's post about seven different sutta translations (here it was the Yamakasutta). I searched, could not find his post, but I remember: Ven. Thanissaro's translations are mystical, Ven. Bodhi more academical, etc. Everyone according to his character. Thus, one should compare several translations. Can anybody find this interesting post for me? ..... S: Here it is in full. It was post #46496. For your interest, Nina, I found it easily by keying in "Dhammanando sutta translations" in the search box on the DSG homepage. Metta, Sarah. ================================ Dhammanando: Dear Howard & Tep, Howard: > I suspect that the phrase "in truth and reality" is actually > there in the Pali, but, of course, I don't know that as a > fact. It would be important to know it. Here is the Pali: attani ca, attaniye ca saccato thetato anupalabbhamaane (MN. i. 138; also cited in the Kathaavatthu's debate on the puggalavaada, Kvu. 68) And seven translations: ~Naa.namoli/Bodhi: "...since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established..." Thanissaro: "...where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality..." Robert Eddison: "...since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self..." B.C. Law: "...But both soul and that which belongs to soul being in truth, and forever, impossible to be known..." I.B. Horner: "But if Self and what belongs to Self, although actually existing are incomprehensible..." Mahamakut Tipi.taka: "...meua attaa lae borikhaan neuang duai attaa bukkhon theu ao mai dai, doey khwaam pen khong jing, doey khwaam pen khong thae..." [When a person cannot take hold of attaa or the appurtenances connected with attaa as a truth and as a reality] Mahachulalongkorn Tipi.taka: "...meua thang ton lae khong thii neuang kap ton ja yang hen mai dai, doey khwaam pen khong jing, doey khwaam pen khong thae..." [When both self and things connected with self cannot be apprehended as a truth and as a reality] (Khun Tep, I should be interested to know if you agree with how I have rendered these Thai translations. In particular, do you think "as a truth" properly conveys "doey khwaam pen khong jing", or would "truly" be better? Or something else?). Of the seven renderings above, those of Horner and Law seem to me to be completely off the map, while the remaining five seem more or less defensible as far as purely philological considerations go. There are two key terms in the passage that give rise to disagreement: firstly, the participle "anupalabbhamaane"; secondly, the phrase "saccato thetato". How one conceives the meaning of these will determine how one interprets the passage; and how one interprets the passage will determine how one goes about translating it. The problem, of course, is that every translator's interpretation of the above phrases will be determined -- or at least influenced -- by his prior assumptions about the Buddha's teaching. Let's start with anupalabbhamaane. This is the present participle of the passive form of the verb upalabhati, inflected in the locative case. Phew! Just to make things a little more complicated, it also has the negative particle na ('not') placed at the front, which then changes to an- in accordance with the rules of euphonic junction. Upalabhati means to obtain, get or find. So in the passive voice it would mean to be obtained, gotten or found. With the addition of the negative particle 'na' the meaning would be "not to be found." Here's one example of the verb that you will probably be familiar with; it's found in every Indian logic textbook: va~njhaaya putto na upalabbhati. "A son of a barren woman is not to be found." (I think western philosophers would phrase it, " 'Son of a barren woman' does not obtain."). Elsewhere the same will be predicated of "horns of a hare", "flowers in the sky", etc. And here arises the first point of controversy among translators and interpreters of this sutta: does the phrase "not to be obtained" mean the same as "not exist"? ~Naa.namoli, Bodhi and myself would answer yes. A mystically-inclined monk like Thanissaro would answer no. Unsurprisingly Thanissaro has chosen a rendering ("not pinned down") that stresses the epistemic or cognitive, and would tend to imply that a self *does* exist, but one that is too inscrutable to say anything about. To continue, when the verb na upalabbhati is made into a present participle, the meaning would be "non-obtaining" (or more precisely, a "not-being-obtained-ness"). When this present participle is inflected in the locative case, then various meanings are possible, and here arises the second point of controversy. What function does the locative have in this context? There are three possibilities: Spatial or situational stipulative: "Where there is a non-obtaining of self..." Temporal stipulative: "When there is a non-obtaining of self...." Causative: "Because there is a non-obtaining of self..." ~Naa.namoli, Bodhi and I of course favour the causative, for the other two would leave a loophole that there might be some time or place where self *does* obtain. Thanissaro of course favours a reading that will leave his mysticism intact. So here too it's a case of our prior assumptions determining how we translate. Now for "saccato thetato". Sacca means true or a truth; theta means sure, firm, or reliable, or something that has these features. Adding the suffix -to turns these words into adverbs. Here I'm not really sure about the relative merits of the above translations, or even if there is a difference between "X does not obtain as a truth" or "X does not in truth obtain." I know this is what you were asking about in your post, but for me the crux of the matter is the word anupalabbhamaane. The difference between my old rendering and the ~Naa.namoli/Bodhi one is that I had taken saccato thetato to be an adverbial qualification of anupalabbhamaane, whereas N & B make it more like an adjectival qualification of "self and what belongs to self." I now think that their rendering is more likely to be correct. At least it seems to accord better with the .tiikaa to this sutta. I should be interested to hear Suan's comments on "saccato thetato" if he is reading this. Best wishes, Dhammanando ====================== #116853 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:27 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Dear Sarah, Thank you very much. I did the keying in in the search box, but no result. Nina. Op 17-aug-2011, om 8:58 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Here it is in full. It was post #46496. For your interest, Nina, I > found it easily by keying in "Dhammanando sutta translations" in > the search box on the DSG homepage. #116854 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! sarahprocter... Hi Pt & Ken H, --- On Sun, 14/8/11, ptaus1 wrote: >PT In the quote that Sarah gave from ACMA (thanks Sarah), that'd be abstention due to undertaking the precepts. > -------------------- > KH: I think that quote was about kusala citta without panna, not with panna. >pt: Hm, my understanding was that the last cateogory of the three clearly referred to satipatthana - both by ACMA and Sarah. Perhaps Sarah can say more about the second and third ACMA categories. .... S: Just to requote them from CMA: S:> The commentators distinguish three types of virati: (1) natural abstinence; 2)abstinence by undertaking precepts; and 3) abstinence by eradication.[see Asl 103-104; Expos., pp. 136-7] >1) Natural abstinence (sampattavirati) is the abstinence from evil deeds when the opportunity arises to engage in them, due to the consideration of one's social position, age, level of education, etc. An example is refraining from theft out of concern that one's reputation would be hurt if one is caught. .... S: I believe the virati must be kusala, but as natually occurring without panna. Just as some people naturally have a lot of metta or dana, but without any panna, so no development. .... >2) Abstinence by undertaking precepts (samaadaanavirati) is the abstinence from evil deeds because one has undertaken to observe precepts, for example, the Five Precepts of abstaining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and intoxicants. ... S: Samaadaanavirati must be with panna as I understand. Not just undertaking to follow the precepts because these are the rules of the temple or on full moon day in a Buddhist country or at school, but because there is an understanding of the harmful deeds abstained from at such moments. .... >3) Abstinence by eradication (samucchedavirati) is the abstinence associated with the supramundane path consciousness, which arises eradicating the dispositions towards evil deeds. Whereas the previous two viratis are mundane, this one is supramundane. .... S: Clearly this refers to '"the cutting off" of the tendency to such deeds as culminating from the development of satipatthana. For the arahant, there's no more virati arising, because there's no thought or idea of any more akusala arising. Just my reflections. Appreciated your discussion. Metta Sarah ======= #116855 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:45 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Desr Nina, --- On Wed, 17/8/11, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >Thank you very much. I did the keying in in the search box, but no result. .... S: You may have tried it on one of its "off" days:-) There was another post of Dhammanando's I was looking for recently in which he discussed what I vaguely recalled as a Dhp quote about killing parents(?) and how, of course, it wasn't to be taken literally. He then gave the essential commentarial explanation of the terms. I've probably got it all mixed up, but maybe you, Phil, Rob K or someone else can help me find it. Metta Sarah ====== #116856 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! sarahprocter... Hi Pt (Ken H, Phil & all), --- On Fri, 12/8/11, ptaus1 wrote: >In other words, if there's abstention due to appreciating pure conduct and knowing the results of mis/deeds, this is still kusala citta, even though there's no satipatthana. In fact, I'd go as far to say that this sort of abstention even develops kusala sijce there's understanding present there, even thoug it is on conceptual level. Of course, it should also be clear that this sort of abstention, though kusala, does not eradicate defilements, and so doesn't really solve the problem. .... S: Yes, agreed. ... >PT: So yes, as friends we should encourage eachother towards satipatthana, since that's the only way to eradicate defilements, as well as warn eachother against taking akusala for kusala (first case in my list), which I think is very easy to do because the first three cases in the list in essence rely on concepts, so it's very easy to fool yourself when thinking about these things or rationalising situations. So only with satipatthana can one be sure what's actually going on - kusala or akusala. .... S: kusala or akusala and understanding all these various dhammas that arise as anatta. As you say, the only way to lead to the eradication of akusala. Metta Sarah ===== #116857 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Giving to immeasurable beings freedom from fear sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Fri, 12/8/11, philip wrote: >I love this sutta passage, it is referring to abhayadaana, the giving of freedom from danger and fear: "Herein, monks, a noble disciple gives up the taking of life and abstains from it. By abstaining from (it) (he) gives to immeasurable beings freedom from fear, gives to them freedom from hostility and freedom from oppression. By giving to immeasurable beings freedom from fear, hostility and oppression, he himself will enjoy immeasurable freedom from f, h and o.". (AN 8, 39) >The same is said about the other four precepts. >I wonder if this is literally true or a stirring concept that supports the samattha subject of recollection of virtues or something like that. .... S: Yes, great passage. I think we can prove it to be true in daily life. Through not harming or hurting others and showing metta, we become a true friend to sentient beings and are free from fear and so on. Metta Sarah ====== #116858 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:11 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- On Fri, 12/8/11, Robert E wrote: >I appreciate all that you said regarding the appearance and understsanding of the Dhamma and the path. Regarding pariyatti, the idea that pariyatti is the beginning of direct understanding confuses me. It seems that the point of pariyatti is that Right Concept must precede Direct Seeing. Is that a wrong apprehension on my part? .... S: This is right - the right concept about reality as preceding the direct seeing of reality. For example, if one hasn't heard about visible object, 'the seen', a dhamma which is anatta as all that is seen now, there won't be any direct understanding of the present visible object. Before we came across the Buddha's teachings, we thought we saw people and things and that it was all our experience. .... >If pariyatti is the beginning of direct understanding, how does that match up with patipatti and pativedha? It seems to me that I have heard of those stages as being of kind, not just of degree. .... S: Patipatti is the "direct seeing", the direct understanding of the reality, not just the concept of the reality. In other words, satipatthana. Pativedha refers to the direct realisation, direct penetration at moments of insight and enlightnement. ... >Can you help me clarify where the Right Concept/Right Conceptual Understanding gives way to the other stages that involve more direct seeing of dhammas? .... S: So now, we discuss more about dhammas just for the purpose of "straightening of views" (remember - one of the 10 deeds of merit). It is through the straightening of views, the pariyatti which firmly and clearly understands what is true, what is right, that patipatti develops leading to pativedha. Does that make sense? Metta Sarah ===== #116859 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Implications of Foulness of the Body sarahprocter... Hi Antony, Always good to read your reflections. --- On Wed, 10/8/11, antony272b2 wrote: >On page 160 of "Great Disciples of the Buddha" Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: "With the scalpel of meditative insight Vangisa had to dissect the body and probe beneath its charming exterior in order to see the wretchedness and misery lying within." >Antony: I'm thinking that the foulness of the body isn't just that it would stink and look ugly if you took away the skin, but that even in a healthy body having blood vessels etc. involves stressful internal bodily contact and feeling which can be sensed in meditation. ..... S: Isn't it more helpful to understand that the body we find so precious is just an illusion and in truth there are just the various rupas, the various elements arising and falling away? It is because these rupas arise and fall away all the time and are as such "oppressed" that they are truly foul oe impure (asubha), not beautiful or pure (subha) at all. The sotapanna has no more illusion or wrong view about the beauty of the body because there is no more illusion about a body as existing. It is clearly understood that there are only impermanent, unsatisfactory and foul namas and rupas arising and falling away. ... >I read somewhere where the Buddha said there is no such thing as a healthy body: "This body, Magandiya, is a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.075x.than.html .... S: Again, what is this body but the presently arising and falling away rupas. Metta Sarah ====== With metta / Antony. #116860 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ann's reflections sarahprocter... Dear Nina (& Ann), Thx for adding the Vis commentary notes - I found it helpful to read these again. As we've discussed, there are always difficulties, always ailments and sicknesses in life and it's so helpful, I find, to reflect on rupa as the sick room, citta as the sick person, vedana as the sickness, sanna as the immediate cause and sankhara as the source of the sickness. Even now as we discuss dhamma, the vedana and all other conditioned dhammas are sick! Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I quote from my Vis. study and Tiika, that elaborates more: > Vis. 220. > Text Vis.: 4. 'As to simile': the materiality aggregate [as object] of > clinging is like a sick-room because it is the dwelling-place, as > physical basis, door, and object, of the sick man, namely, the > consciousness aggregate as object of clinging. > ------ > N: The khandha of consciousness, citta, is like the sick man, and the > ruupas that are the physical base, the sensedoor and the sense object > are like the place where the sickness occurs, as the Tiika states. > ------- > Text Vis.: The feeling aggregate as object of clinging is like the > sickness because it afflicts. > ------ > N: The Tiika explains that the feeling that is the sickness should be > understood as the three kinds of dukkha: dukkha-dukkha, dukkha due to > change (vipari.naamadukkha) and sa"nkhaaradukkha. #116861 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:37 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, part 2 in reply to #116693 (I ran out of time in the middle, yesterday:-)) --- On Wed, 10/8/11, Robert E wrote: >For those who think we do exist, albeit temporarily, in psychophysical form, and that this form is part of the path, the physical universe and physical actions, the condition of the physical body, the types of physical actions that are taken, the condition of the brain and how physical structures and skills are developed and conditioned, are all part of what is attended to in terms of development of understanding and confronting defilements, rather than it being a thoroughly internal and "passive" experience. .... S: Sorry, I don't understand this. What does it mean to sugest "we do exist, albeit temporarily, in psychophysical form..."? I think you need to talk to Howard more on this point:-)) Do you think the Buddha taught that all dhammas are anatta except on a temporary basis? .... >That is the kind of difference of view that I am driving at. I think the emphasis on rupas and namas being totally isolated single experiences of individual qualities that do not ever actually come together to form a whole, takes away the focus from the actions and practices that take place in what is thought to be the conventional world, which, I contend, is the world that we actually experience all or most of the time, and which should be attended as provisionally real and part of the path. .... S: I think the world that we actually experience all or most of the time is a world of illusion, ideas, concepts about the actual namas and rupas experienced. ..... >I agree that the experience of attachment and of kusala, panna and awakening, all take place within the psychological or mental realm, but it is important that the practices that lead out of attachment and delusion are concrete, actual and practiceable, not just experienced when they arise involuntarily. ... S: The Buddha taught that the practice of the path was the development of panna and associated kusala factors. These mental factors are conditioned, like now, by hearing and considering the Dhamma. You'd like to introduce some extra particular postures and techniques (surely, ideas about certain namas and rupas?), but the Buddha taught that there was only one path - that of satipatthana. .... > It is the belief in volition, intention, development through conscious and purposeful means, that is practiced in concrete actual practices in the physical world by focusing and disciplining the body and mind, that is dismissed when one only believes in passive involuntary experiences of the path in isolated arising dhammas. .... S: Yes, there is volition, cetana cetasika arising now, arising at each moment. Would you agree that cetana is also conditioned? Are you suggesting that all sankhara dhammas are conditioned apart from those involved in "conscious purposeful means"? What about focus, say ekaggata cetasika (concentration). This also arises now with each citta. Would you agree that this is also conditioned or would such "focusing and disciplining the body and mind" to consist of dhammas which are also not conditioned? .... >>S:In a sense all conditioned dhammas - mental and physical -are "inconsequential" in that they are conditioned, fleeting, arise and fall away. It is the importance we place on what is the ephemeral, dukkha and anatta that leads to such grief. R:>I agree with that and it is nicely put. .... S: Oh my goodness:-)) So would you agree that in this sense, even any "focus" or "intention" is "inconsequential" in the sense of being conditioned and impermanent? Metta Sarah ======= #116862 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: audio uploading sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Lukas & Nina, #115368 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: >I sometimes worry that Lukas will be led to believe that there should never be painful struggle to avoid transgression, that if there is painful struggle, it is about self trying to be good and therefore not helpful. But painful struggle rooted in akusala is at times part of overcoming powerful defilements. I very much like this pasage from AN IV,5. "OF what nature is one who goes against the stream? It is one who does not indulge sensual desire and commit wrong deeds. He lives the holy life, though in painful struggle, with difficulty, sighing and in tears." .... S: I'd been meaning to check the Pali for the "painful struggle". Here is Thanissaro's translation and also the Pali: "And who is the individual who goes against the flow? There is the case where an individual doesn't indulge in sensual passions and doesn't do evil deeds. Even though it may be with pain, even though it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called the individual who goes against the flow. "Katamo ca, bhikkhave, pa.tisotagaamī puggalo? Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco puggalo kaame ca nappa.tisevati, paapa~nca kamma.m na karoti, sahaapi dukkhena sahaapi domanassena assumukhopi rudamaano paripu.n.na.m parisuddha.m brahmacariya.m carati. Aya.m vuccati, bhikkhave, pa.tisotagaamii puggalo." Yes, bound to be plenty of sorrow along the way - all conditioned too. Metta Sarah ======= #116863 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:03 am Subject: Re: Ann's reflections szmicio Dear Sarah, >rupa as the sick room, citta as the sick person, vedana as the sickness, sanna as the immediate cause and sankhara as the source of the sickness. > > Even now as we discuss dhamma, the vedana and all other conditioned dhammas are sick! L: Even in the moment of alobha, adosa and amoha(optionaly)? Does always the khandhas are upadanakhandhas? Best wishes Lukas #116864 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:06 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Dear RobertK2, all, >RK:and do you think there is anyone who can wish kusala into being. >================================================= I not very convinced about using no-control to deny intentional practice. If intentional worldly actions are not denied within no-control, then why deny intentional Dhamma practice? When it is cold, one puts on more clothing. When one is hungry one eats to alleviate hunger. Why can't the same said about bhavana? Is it possible that there is no control, but one can train so that in the future more kusala will arise? Maybe the training (which is conditioned) itself is the cause for future trained state. I would like to give an example. A young guy joins the gym. He cannot yet lift 500 pounds, so what does he do? Should he say "I don't have right conditions to be big & strong. Maybe I should quit." ? No. So he trains right, eats right, rests right and if conditions are met, eventually after some time will be able to lift 500 pounds. Meanwhile he patiently works out, and increases poundages little by little. Sometimes his progress seems to go backward, so he cycles the poundages, sometimes he feels better so he adds 5 pounds. Eventually he can succeed. While everything he does is conditioned and the result is conditioned, this training is a required condition for future success. Why can't bhavana be like this? Sure it happens due to causes & conditions. But it does occur, and without it there will not be the proper result (breakthrough). With best wishes, Alex #116865 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Implications of Foulness of the Body truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S:Isn't it more helpful to understand that the body we find so >precious is just an illusion and in truth there are just the various >rupas, the various elements arising and falling away? >================================================== Momentariness doesn't seem to affect me much, and perhaps many people as well. Lets remember the 3 sights that affected the Buddha: the old man, the sick man and the dead man. I believe it is MUCH more dispassion producing to focus on the aging, hair greying, skin wrinkling and all the indignities of aging and dying. Lying on the bed grasping for air, blood feeling like acid burning, the mind in a hazy fog and headache, the loosing control of the bladder, bowels, brain misfiring and producing hallucinations, etc - is much more scary and nibbida producing... I can see why some people (who are very attached to the body) can avoid looking at this aspect and try to turn attention to something more sanitary and less relevant... As someone has said: >============================================================ "However, the fact that people resist this meditation so much shows that it's important. It's threatening, for it gets right to the core of our attachment. There's nothing in the world we're attached to more than our own bodies. That's why people have so many excuses for not focusing right here. If you don't focus right here, what's going to happen? You're going to maintain your deep attachment to the body. It's not going to go away on its own. Some people think they can short circuit the process of attachment by going straight to their sense of self, thinking that by cutting out the sense of self they won't have to work on contemplation of the body because the work they're doing goes deeper, straight to the root. But attachment is like a vine: You can't find the root until you take hold of the nearest branch and trace it back. You can't really get to the root of your attachment to self until you've looked at where your most blatant day-to-day, moment-to-moment attachment is: right here at the body. The least little thing happens to your body and you can't stand it. A little bit of hunger, a little bit of thirst, too much heat, too much cold sets you running off. A little bit of illness and you go running for medicine. If that's not attachment, what is?" >============================================================ With best wishes, Alex #116866 From: Ken O Date: Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 3 sources of Panna. To Phil ashkenn2k Dear Lukas >I still have this question: In a moments of vipassana ~nana is there panna of >level of samatha, that knows citta is kusala and the way to develop more kusala? > KO: Such definition of samantha bhavana is not found in the texts. Why? Because one do not need panna to know this is kusala or aksuala, it just need aloba, adosa together with hiri and ottapa. Since young, our parents or teachers or religious teachers would have guided us, this is a bad conduct and this is a good conduct. But one needs panna to learn kamma even for worldings who are not in the dispensation. I realise vipassana nana is not a good term. Let us stick to commentarian definition, ditthi-visuddhi-niddesa (purification of view) this is where one define mentality-materiality. The text I extract from Visud explain itself of samatha where one uses jhanas as a basis of insight. You can read it by this weblink. http://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/PathofPurification2011.pdf Visud pg 605 (this pages follow the print copy and not the scanned one, the pages slightly differ) [Defining of mentality - materiality] [(a) Starting with mentality] 3 One who wants to accomplish this, if, firstly, his vehicle is serenity (samantha), should emerge from any fine-material or immaterial jhana, except the base of neither preception nor non-preception, and he should discern according to charateristics, function etc., the jhanas factors consisting of applied thought, etc,, and the states associated with them [that is feeling, perception adn so on]. When he has done so, all that should defined as 'mentality' (nama) in the sense of bending (namana) because of its bending on to the object. pg 606 (b) Starting with materiality 5 But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in detail in one of the various ways given in the chapter on the definition of the four elements (ch XI, $27ff) >I always thought that knowing 4 jatis of citta is vipassana function. It clearly > >knows the citta is kusala, akusala, vipaka and kiriya. KO: panna is the development understanding of general and specific characteristics of dhamma. to understand it just the 4 jatis is only a small part of it. The focus is this and not the four jatis and furthermore one does not need panna to know this is kusala or akusala. Ken O #116867 From: Ken O Date: Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! ashkenn2k Dear Phil sorry for the delay reply > >Ph: Does "holding to view of self" mean having an explicit, elaborated view that > >there is an eternal self or could it mean having a lingering, not-yet fully >extinguished belief in some kind of self? I don't profess a belief in etetnal >self but I am surs the belief is lying latent, still, there is something deeply >rooted in us that wants to believe in it no matter how easily we say "there is >no eternal self." And so often in the suttas the Buddha speaks of having "an eye > >to the future" (those words are used only once as far as I know, but the same >meaning is often found elsewhere) which means a concern for or interest in >future destination. Other suttas tell us how for example. the monk who aspires >for rebirth in deva realm should reflect, "may these beings be free from harm" >etc. I feel sonetimes there are suttas wbich have implicit wrong view in them, >almost like they were remnants from Brahmanic views, for example, the sutta that > >says that a couple of perfectly harmonized virtue will rejoice in each other's >company in a future life. It sometimes feels the Buddha taught to people >"outside the dispensation" by the above definition in terms that would attract >them so that eventually the deeper truth could reach them but ascribing what >sounds like a marketing strategy to the Buddha is not good. KO: According to my opinions, Buddha taught different suttas for people who have different level of panna or acceptability to the dhamma. For those he knows that could be enlighted by him, he will teach the deeper ones like dependent origination, not self For those, who could not be enlighted at his time, he could put in the seed of panna or strengthen the panna so that it could be slowly mature and the person could be enlighted when he met future Buddhas For some. he will incalculate moral actions so that they could benefit the person in his future lives like good rebirth in brahmas planes and the couple in future lives. Whatever teachings Buddha taught, it is to the benefit of beings due to his great compassion towards them. It is not marketing but it is always with beings benefit in mind. the main difference between the those within the dispensation and outside is the understanding of not self. Impermenance, suffering and even kamma are visible and observable by worldings but the understanding of anatta only arise when a Buddha arise. so the understanding of kamma by worldings that is outside the dispensation is because of the latency of view of self and there is no understanding of not self which eradicates this latency. That is why those people who practise jhanas out of the dispensation only result in good rebirth in the rupa and arupa planes but not enlightenment as the latency of self is not eradicated by the understanding of not self Ken O >Anyways, my point is that it is maybe not as easy as we think to say we are >within tge dispensation by the above definition, at least it isn't easy for >me... > >Metta, >Phil > >The disciple in higher training is one of >> right view on account of fixed right view,[4] the one beyond training on >>account >> >> of (the right view) that is beyond training.[5]>> >> Another quote, pg 159, Dispeller of Delusion, PTS >> <<2084 But through being included in the above-mentioned text too, knowledge > >>of >> >> ownership of kamma is called understanding (panna). For that comes to be both >> >> >> the Tathagatas have arisen adn when they have not. When one has not arisen, >>it >> >> arises through the giving of Velama, the giving of Vessantara and so on. When >> >> >> one has arisen, there no measure of those who undertake great given (mahadana) > > >> by means of that knowledge. But the understanding of patha and knowledge >> exceeds all [other kinds] of understanding. They occure widesly only when a >> Tathagata has arisen, not when one has not. So because the understanding of >>the >> >> path is the higher understanding , therefore catusu maggesu ("regarding the >>four >> >> paths") and so on is said in order to show understanding as extreme >> understanding.>> >> here higher understanding is adhipanna >> Ken O >>  >> >> >>  >> >> > >> >From: philip >> >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >> >Sent: Sunday, 14 August 2011 18:14:10 >> >Subject: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Hi Ken and Pt and all >> > >> > >> >> -------------------- >> >> >> KH: <. . .> the question of panna arising with concepts. I don't think it >> >> >> >>can. (Unless, of course, they are concepts of dhammas - as in pariyatti.) >> >> >> >> > Ph: I would have assumed panna could arise with a concept as object. >> >> -------------------- >> >> >> >> KH: There are two kinds of panna, aren't there? There is the panna that >>knows >> >> >>kusala from akusala, and there is the panna that knows nama from rupa. I >>think >> >> >>in both cases the object has to be a dhamma or, at least, a concept of a >>dhamma. >> > >> >Ph: Are you sure "there are two kinds of panna?" iIsn't knowing nama from rupa >> >> >> >the first vipassana-nana(?) If abstention was dependant on stages of insight >> >there would a lit less abstainin. The awareness of tge present moment tgat >>keeps >> >> >you from bad deeds (I sincerely celebrate such kusala) is not vupassana-nana >>is >> >> >it? Surely hiri otappa sometimes functions with a conxept for you, doesn't it? >> >> >> >They are phrased in a way that makes it hard to understand tgem without >>concepts >> >> >as object, for example Vism XIV,142: "A man rejects evil through hiri out of >> >respect for himself, as the daughter of a good famuky does; he rejects evil >> >through otappa out of resoect for another, as a courtesan does." All >>definitions >> >> >I have seen of hiri otappa include aspects of concern about self-respectand >> >respect of others. Surely respect of others must have concept as object, don't >> >> >> >you think? >> > >> > >> >> > Ph: Isn't there panna accompanying metta, when metta actually arises >>(rather >> >> >>than lobha) and of course metta has concept as object. >> >> ---------------------------- >> >> >> > >> >> KH: Strictly speaking, the term 'metta' refers to a state of jhana >>absorption >> >> >>(which has a concept as object). And jhana requires the type of panna that >>knows >> >> >>kusala from akusala. >> > >> >Ph: But surely the object of this jhana absorption is a concept, a person? >> > >> >> However, the terms 'kusala' and 'akusala' refer to characteristics of >>dhammas, >> >> >>not of concepts. And so I don't see how panna could ever experience the same > > >> >>concept that metta experiences. >> >> >> >> I'll leave the next part for Pt: >> > >> >Ph: Ok Ken, the actual content of this thread is of less importance to me (the >> >> >> >technically kusalishness of abstention doesn't really concern me to tell the >> >truth, just the abstention) than rhe exercise of friendly and respectful >>speech >> >> >towards you, Ken H. And I have decided to longer withhold merit from you! >>(Haha, >> >> >just teasing Kelvin.) >> > >> > >> >Metta, >> >Phil >> > >> >Metta, >> >Phil >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> > Ph: Even if there is no panna, metta is kusala of course. So with the >> >>Buddha's recommendation against illicit sex as conceptual object, for >>example, >> >> >>accompanied by panna which sees the value of the >> >> Buddha's word, abstention arises, sometimes, and doesn't on other occasions. >> >>I >> >> >>don't see any problem with that >> >> <. . .> >> >> I don't know about you, but I know when there is remorse about bad >>behaviour, >> >> >>the mind does not settle in....oh damn! You guys don't meditate. Never mind! > >>:) >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> KH: I don't, but I believe Pt is quite an accomplished meditator. If that's > >>not >> >> >>a contradiction in terms! :-) >> >> >> >> Ken H >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > > > #116868 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:38 am Subject: The Disciple... bhikkhu5 Friends: How is the Faith leading to Lay Discipleship? Having heard the Buddha speak the Lay Disciple exclaims: Excellent, Lord, excellent! It is as if someone were to set up right what had been knocked and turned upside-down, or it is as if someone revealed what was covered up and hidden, or it is as if someone pointed out the way to one who had got lost by going astray, or it is as if someone brought a lamp into a dark place, so that those with eyes could see the forms there! Exactly so has the Blessed Buddha explained this true Dhamma in many various clear ways. Therefore do I, Venerable Sir, hereby take refuge in the Blessed Buddha, hereby take refuge in the true Dhamma, and hereby take refuge in the Noble Sangha... May the Blessed Buddha accept and know me as a lay-follower from this day on and as long as this life shall last! So is the faith of those who after countless lives at last have accumulated and now possesses the right and ripe conditions for attaining the valuable state of lay disciple of a Buddha... This is the very first step towards the Bliss of Deathless Nibbāna! <...> Source: DN 2 The Fruits of Retreat: Sāmaññaphala Sutta I 85 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <....> #116869 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:55 am Subject: Re: KENs theories: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ----- <. . .> >> KH: Yes, but if we closely examine those concepts they are not of lasting states. They are of fleeting states. Even uninstructed people know that sentient beings do not remain the same. They know a person can be generous one moment and stingy the next. (And, most of the time, at various stages in between.) > > So I am suggesting that all of us - Dhamma students and non-Dhamma students alike - spend most of our days having vague concepts of an ultimate, fleeting, reality. Even if we don't know exactly what it is. >> > RK: so even those who haven't heard the Buddhas teaching have vague insight into paramattha dhamma and anicca? ----- KH: a vague concept: not necessarily an insight. Although I have been told (at DSG) that there can be right theoretical understanding of aniccca even outside a Buddha's sasana. ----------------- RK: People who strongly believe in an eternal soul, for instance, at the moments they are truly generous, are having some conceptual understanding of paramattha? ----------------- KH: Again, I wouldn't call it an understanding: just a concept. I don't know why you are so surprised. Are you saying that people in general think of consciousness as something concrete and lasting? Not something intangible and fleeting? ------------------------- RK: I should make a page of Kenh quotes that I disagree with for general edification. ------------------------- KH: That would be fun! Ken H "There are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't." (Anon.) #116870 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Implications of Foulness of the Body nilovg Dear Alex, Op 17-aug-2011, om 18:47 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > I believe it is MUCH more dispassion producing to focus on the > aging, hair greying, skin wrinkling and all the indignities of > aging and dying. > > Lying on the bed grasping for air, blood feeling like acid burning, > the mind in a hazy fog and headache, the loosing control of the > bladder, bowels, brain misfiring and producing hallucinations, etc > - is much more scary and nibbida producing... I can see why some > people (who are very attached to the body) can avoid looking at > this aspect and try to turn attention to something more sanitary > and less relevant... ------- N: Reading your post I can feel so much with you. These are your own experiences. Not everyone is inclined to go straight to fleeting ruupas our body consists of, I understand! But there is a difference between suffering and pondering over all these ailments and a beginning of understanding that what we take for body are only elements. Conditioned ruupas. It depends on a person's inclinations whether he sees the value of this or not. We can prove to ourselves whether the pa~n~naa that directly experience realities leads even to a little more more detachment or not. Under the Application of Mindfulness of the Body are included parts of the body, corpses in different states of decay. When we are forgetful we cling to my important, beautiful body. But when we learn about nails, teeth, skin, we are reminded that there is not much left of what we take for the whole body we cling to. Only some insignificant parts. This can lead us to the truth more directly. In fact, the body consists of the tiniest elements that do not stay for a split second. Hardness of the body is real but it cannot stay, and even pain caused by many diseases is there only for a moment. No self who can control anything, only impersonal elements arising because of conditions and then gone. When suffering so much there is also thinking about it and I believe that thinking will not lead to the eradication of clinging and wrong view. We should know that we take the body for 'my body', even though we say that it is anattaa. This clinging with wrong view is so deeply rooted, very hard to notice it and to develop understanding of it. ------- > A:... You can't really get to the root of your attachment to self > until you've looked at where your most blatant day-to-day, moment- > to-moment attachment is: right here at the body. The least little > thing happens to your body and you can't stand it. A little bit of > hunger, a little bit of thirst, too much heat, too much cold sets > you running off. A little bit of illness and you go running for > medicine. If that's not attachment, what is?" ------ N: You expressed this situation very well. Too much heat or cold and there we are: distress conditioned by attachment. Can there be more understanding of the elements of heat and cold as they are? We cannot direct these as to our liking, beyond control. It seems a long way: to become familiar with characteristics such as heat or hardness appearing at the present moment so that pa~n~naa will be able to see them as non-self later on. A long way, going through all the stages of insight, but a sure way. Understanding can make all the difference in our life. ------- Nina. #116871 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: KENs theories: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! nilovg Dear Ken H, Op 18-aug-2011, om 3:55 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > RK: I should make a page of Kenh quotes that I disagree with for > general edification. > ------------------------- > > KH: That would be fun! ------- N: Ah, that reminds me of something. Sarah once said that it would be good to have a collection of all your sayings about the present moment. This was not a joke. Understanding the reality of the present moment is a sure way to know the difference between paramattha dhammas and concepts. When the object is not a paramattha dhamma it is a concept. ------ Nina. #116872 From: "philip" Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:22 am Subject: Re: KENs theories: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! philofillet Hello Nina Understanding the reality of the present > moment is a sure way to know the difference between paramattha > dhammas and concepts. When the object is not a paramattha dhamma it > a concept I have been listening to old (fot me!) talks from India, so good to hear Acharn Sujin talk. You know that I always like to hear her remindwrs about how prevalent lobha is. To be honest, I feel what you write above is facile compared to A.S. Because you are praising Ken H and I don't like that? Perhaps moments of that mixed in. But essentially there is doubt whether cocky comments about understanding the present moment at the paramattha level necessarily represent any kind of bridge to understanding the present monent at the paramattha level or whether on the other hand they can actually be a sign of blindness to lobha moha behind it all. I don't say only Ken H is at risk of that, just that he would have to be coronated king of it, and that if there were a collection of his quotes I would want to have a big rubber stamp with LOBHA and press it down gently on every page. In a talk I heard you say "We think (say?) 'this is hardness' but that is already thinking" and Sarah says something about self, and sakkaya ditthi creeping in, and I thought YES that is what I always feel. But you tell me I look for lobha everywhere. I'm glad I sense lobha and self finding satisfaction in thinking about deep Dhamma, it is an honest beginning. But don't worry, there are moments of confidence in the natural development of panna through listening and reflecting, I liked this from Acharn Sujin: "Lobha will arise all the time, for panna to see." Let me stop there, on a confident note! Metta, Phil p.s I am still taking a break, which is why I am here! ;) ;) #116873 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:55 pm Subject: Re: KENs theories: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! kenhowardau Hi Nina, ---- <. . .> > N: Ah, that reminds me of something. Sarah once said that it would be > good to have a collection of all your sayings about the present > moment. This was not a joke. Understanding the reality of the present > moment is a sure way to know the difference between paramattha > dhammas and concepts. When the object is not a paramattha dhamma it > is a concept. ---- KH: Thanks, Nina, I agree with you that we can't hear enough about the present moment. It is all there is, and all there ever will be. When it ends, everything ends. The next universe will be an entirely new one. When we know that, how could we get attached to anything: or upset about anything? :-) Ken H #116874 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:53 pm Subject: Re: KENs theories: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: I don't know why you are so surprised. Are you saying that people in general think of consciousness as something concrete and lasting? Not something intangible and fleeting? pt: I think that the wast majority takes consciousness, knowingly or unknowingly, as something that last or is eternal. Otherwise, most religions wouldn't spend so much time on the soul, being, etc, that lasts, is reincarnated, resurrected, etc. For me, when I was just starting with the suttas and then abhidhamma, consciousness is one thing I couldn't quite get what it was. Because it's so fundamental to all experiejces, and so it seems it's always there. Even now, most of the time, there's the assumption somewhere there in the back of the mind that it's all one and the same thing that lasts and will go on lasting. Hence why I like abhidhamma - it describes consciousness in various permutations and allows to sort of disidentify from it and (occasionally) see it as just another phenomenon. Nothing special. Best wishes pt #116876 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:53 pm Subject: Nimitta (was [dsg] Re: Smell etc, inseparable rupas epsteinrob Hi Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Rob E > KO: all conditioned dhammas have nimittas even in nama and rupa level, only > Nibbana does not have. I would said nama and rupa are the pixels (the atomic > nimitta) while the conventional reality is the picture (the big nimitta) > displayed by the TV or computer monitor are formed by the pixel. Well that analogy begs a very interesting question - are the pixels on your television "more real" than the picture they form? I think they are two levels of perception, but I don't think one is more "actual" than the other. Conventional and ultimate view of realities are both valid in a different field of endeavor. We would think it was very strange if a scientist walked around outside of the lab with his microscope glued to his face so he could continue to see the molecules in "everyday life," yet the knowledge he has from seeing directly is very valuable. Even the arahant adopts the "conventional view" [but without any delusions] so that he can walk, eat, and talk to people. But he has access to the "microscopic" view, so he can go to the finer level of knowledge when it is appropriate. Also it will inform his view so that he doesn't cling to conventional objects. > >On the other hand, I don't especially like the idea that we don't have to worry > > >at all about whether we are dealing with nimittas or real direct seeing of > >dhammas... My understanding > > > >is that a concept cannot be the object of satipatthana, period. I will be happy > > >to hear comments to contradict this, or explain more how the 'bridge of nimitta' > > > >works to develop satipatthana... > > KO: if concept cannot be an object of satipatthana, then Buddha would not have > taught breathing meditation or meditaiton of the foul, cemetary meditation in > the start of satipatthana suttas. Visud, Dispeller of delusion should not have > written about such meditations either. Development of panna is never about > concept vs reality, it is about understanding the nature of dhamma. Maybe you can say a little bit more about how one can "understand the nature of dhammas" by perceiving the nimitta, and how the nimitta relates to the dhamma that it represents - is it a fine, exact replica of the dhamma and its activity? Is it a representation that is more general or that shows how the dhamma operates? It can be > developed through, learning, studying, listening, thinking and examining. The > text differentiate panna between mundane and supramundane and between mundame, > those with the dispensation and those not with the dispensation. the text never > said in mundane development of the path, there must be only dhamma and no > concept. As long as one understand the three characteristics, it > is satipathana. In this sense, what level of "understanding" and what type of understanding qualifies as satipatthana? > A simple example will be, it is the natue of wealth to be > impermanent as it be loss through disasters, robbery or kings. it bring > suffering as one become distress due to its loss, it has no self as one cannot > bring it over to the next life. I see the value in this example, and I believe that the mundane path can develop through conventional understanding, leading to greater awareness. However, I am quite sure that many on dsg will say that this conventional example does not constitute true satipatthana - that at the very least it has to be a nimitta of a momentary dhamma to qualify for the knowledge of satipatthana. > >The discussion below suggests that the nimitta is just as good as direct seeing > > >for the purposes of satipatthana. This still confuses me. > > KO: forget about nimitta, understand the nature of dhamma is more helpful and > more impt. Forget about direct seeing, if one cannot even see at conventional > level of the specific or general characteristics of dhamma, there is no way we > could develop direct seeing. That is sensible. However, I am just trying to figure out whether our understanding of dhammas at this level can qualify as satipatthana and be a true contribution to development of the path. I think it can, but I think many here would disagree. > KO: what is the present object of your mind now :-) conventional or direct. Even > if it is a nimitta of a reality at conventional level or a concept, it does not > matter to me as long as it helps me to develop understanding of the dhamma. Let > me say this again, the text never said for mundane right understanding (except > for vipassana nana level) the object must be a reality and never a concept, if > there is i would have already quote you the text, but I cannot because I cannot > find it anywhere. l I wonder if you think that the mundane path, as you describe, will lead eventually to development of the noble path with more direct seeing, or do you think they are two separate tracks as many here believe? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #116877 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:58 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- On Fri, 12/8/11, Robert E wrote: > >I appreciate all that you said regarding the appearance and understsanding of the Dhamma and the path. Regarding pariyatti, the idea that pariyatti is the beginning of direct understanding confuses me. It seems that the point of pariyatti is that Right Concept must precede Direct Seeing. Is that a wrong apprehension on my part? > .... > S: This is right - the right concept about reality as preceding the direct seeing of reality. > > For example, if one hasn't heard about visible object, 'the seen', a dhamma which is anatta as all that is seen now, there won't be any direct understanding of the present visible object. Before we came across the Buddha's teachings, we thought we saw people and things and that it was all our experience. > .... > >If pariyatti is the beginning of direct understanding, how does that match up with patipatti and pativedha? It seems to me that I have heard of those stages as being of kind, not just of degree. > .... > S: Patipatti is the "direct seeing", the direct understanding of the reality, not just the concept of the reality. In other words, satipatthana. Pativedha refers to the direct realisation, direct penetration at moments of insight and enlightnement. > ... > >Can you help me clarify where the Right Concept/Right Conceptual Understanding gives way to the other stages that involve more direct seeing of dhammas? > .... > S: So now, we discuss more about dhammas just for the purpose of "straightening of views" (remember - one of the 10 deeds of merit). It is through the straightening of views, the pariyatti which firmly and clearly understands what is true, what is right, that patipatti develops leading to pativedha. > > Does that make sense? Yes, that does make sense, and I appreciate all you said above as well. It is at least somewhat more clear. Very helpful. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - #116878 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! ptaus1 Hi Sarah, KenH, Phil, > >PT: So yes, as friends we should encourage eachother towards satipatthana, since that's the only way to eradicate defilements, as well as warn eachother against taking akusala for kusala (first case in my list), which I think is very easy to do because the first three cases in the list in essence rely on concepts, so it's very easy to fool yourself when thinking about these things or rationalising situations. So only with satipatthana can one be sure what's actually going on - kusala or akusala. > .... > S: kusala or akusala and understanding all these various dhammas that arise as anatta. As you say, the only way to lead to the eradication of akusala. pt: Sorry for late reply. Thanks for your replies. At the moment, the issues regarding abstention seem clear to me, so thanks for the discussion. I'll be glad to read further if KenH and Phil have more questions. Best wishes pt p.s. Sorry if some of my posts arrive in duplicate - as the train passes through areas with unstable coverage, the message is sometimes uploaded twice (and even three times on one occasion). #116879 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:15 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > part 2 in reply to #116693 (I ran out of time in the middle, yesterday:-)) > > --- On Wed, 10/8/11, Robert E wrote: > >For those who think we do exist, albeit temporarily, in psychophysical form, and that this form is part of the path, the physical universe and physical actions, the condition of the physical body, the types of physical actions that are taken, the condition of the brain and how physical structures and skills are developed and conditioned, are all part of what is attended to in terms of development of understanding and confronting defilements, rather than it being a thoroughly internal and "passive" experience. > .... > S: Sorry, I don't understand this. What does it mean to sugest "we do exist, albeit temporarily, in psychophysical form..."? > > I think you need to talk to Howard more on this point:-)) Do you think the Buddha taught that all dhammas are anatta except on a temporary basis? Of course, I think that dhammas are anatta in whatever form. The question is whether physical forms exist, such as bodies, not whether they represent a self, which I agree they do not. In either case they are subject to anatta, anicca, and dukkha. And in either case they are temporary, as they are subject to change and dissolution. > >That is the kind of difference of view that I am driving at. I think the emphasis on rupas and namas being totally isolated single experiences of individual qualities that do not ever actually come together to form a whole, takes away the focus from the actions and practices that take place in what is thought to be the conventional world, which, I contend, is the world that we actually experience all or most of the time, and which should be attended as provisionally real and part of the path. > .... > S: I think the world that we actually experience all or most of the time is a world of illusion, ideas, concepts about the actual namas and rupas experienced. Well I appreciate your saying that there is some relationship between what we experience as concepts and the actual dhammas that exist. The question is what the nature of those dhammas really is, and what relationship those concepts have to those dhammas. I like the description in the Abhidhamma Sangaha in which it is said that the relationship of conventional conceptual perceptions to dhammas is like seeing shadowy things behind a curtain in a darkened room. I think that's pretty good. It doesn't quite answer the question of the status of the physical world, and whether there are disassociated rupas floating around in the "real world," whereas we construct them into coherent forms. I don't personally guess the reality compared to what we perceive is that extreme, but that still leaves plenty of room for delusion. :-) > ..... > > >I agree that the experience of attachment and of kusala, panna and awakening, all take place within the psychological or mental realm, but it is important that the practices that lead out of attachment and delusion are concrete, actual and practiceable, not just experienced when they arise involuntarily. > ... > S: The Buddha taught that the practice of the path was the development of panna and associated kusala factors. These mental factors are conditioned, like now, by hearing and considering the Dhamma. You'd like to introduce some extra particular postures and techniques (surely, ideas about certain namas and rupas?), but the Buddha taught that there was only one path - that of satipatthana. Well this is the repeated point of disagreement. I think what you say in the first part of the paragraph is true, but the either/or nature of "satipatthana vs. meditation in 'particular postures'" is not a polarized divide. It seems very obvious from reading the suttas that Buddha advised those practices of the sitting monks as creating the conditions for satipatthana to develop. I don't see any contradiction there at all. Even if practices of certain kinds do lead to enhanced conditions for development of awareness, that wouldn't interfere with either the conditional or uncontrolled nature of the arising of dhammas. It is just a practice that creates certain conditions, nothing more or less. And I believe this is the case, and Buddha spoke of it quite clearly and repeatedly, as well as practicing it himself. > .... > > > It is the belief in volition, intention, development through conscious and purposeful means, that is practiced in concrete actual practices in the physical world by focusing and disciplining the body and mind, that is dismissed when one only believes in passive involuntary experiences of the path in isolated arising dhammas. > .... > S: Yes, there is volition, cetana cetasika arising now, arising at each moment. Would you agree that cetana is also conditioned? Are you suggesting that all sankhara dhammas are conditioned apart from those involved in "conscious purposeful means"? What about focus, say ekaggata cetasika (concentration). This also arises now with each citta. Would you agree that this is also conditioned or would such "focusing and disciplining the body and mind" to consist of dhammas which are also not conditioned? I think that everything that arises does so within a chain of conditions. Conditionality is always at play, so there is no volition that arises all by itself without being within the field of conditions. That does not take away the fact that certain environments, lifestyles, practices, abstentions and relationships create kusala conditions for development. Both are true. > .... > > >>S:In a sense all conditioned dhammas - mental and physical -are "inconsequential" in that they are conditioned, fleeting, arise and fall away. It is the importance we place on what is the ephemeral, dukkha and anatta that leads to such grief. > > R:>I agree with that and it is nicely put. > .... > S: Oh my goodness:-)) So would you agree that in this sense, even any "focus" or "intention" is "inconsequential" in the sense of being conditioned and impermanent? I would agree that any given dhamma is ultimately inconsequential and not worthy of attachment. That is why meditation without attachment is the best kind. :-))) However, that doesn't mean that all dhammas are equal in their affect on the path. Killing someone is still akusala, even though it is just another inconsequential series of dhammas. And the experience of metta is still kusala, even though it is ultimately inconsequential and fleeting as well. If we could detach from all dhammas as they arise, they would all be inconsequential. However, while still in a state of delusion and attachment, it is necessary to cultivate awareness and kusala to develop the path. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #116880 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:21 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Practically, external "conceptual" objects still are and you have to use them. It is only talk about "concepts don't exist. They have no characteristics". No characteristics, huh? Well why do you use one object for one thing (ex: spoon) and another object (ex: fork) for another purpose? Aren't they both supposed to be undifferentiated and non-existent things with no characteristics? > > What is the use of philosophy that gets refuted through the day? You make a worthwhile point. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #116881 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:13 am Subject: Confidence & Conviction! bhikkhu5 Friends: Unwavering Faith induces assured Confidence! The blessed Buddha once noted: Knowing, Friends, evil covetousness and wicked greed to be mental pollutions, the Bhikkhu leaves them, rejects them, eliminates them and eradicates them... Knowing hating ill will to be a mental pollution, he leaves all hostile ill will. Knowing aversive anger to be a mental pollution, he rejects all anger. Knowing vicious revenge to be a mental pollution, he avoids revenge. Knowing contempt to be a mental pollution, he releases contempt. Knowing tyranny to be a mental pollution, he abandons tyranny. Knowing green envy to be a mental pollution, he deserts envy. Knowing self-conceit to be a mental pollution, he quits conceit. Knowing hypocrisy to be a mental pollution, he dodges hypocrisy. Knowing negligence to be a mental pollution, he stops negligence. Knowing puffed pride to be a mental pollution, he cuts out pride. Knowing jealousy to be a mental pollution, he withdraws jealousy. Knowing obstinacy to be a mental pollution, he gives up obstinacy. Knowing vain vanity to be a mental pollution, he relinquishes vanity. Knowing cheating fraud to be a mental pollution, he eschews fraud. Knowing arrogance to be a mental pollution, he renounces arrogance. When the Bhikkhu has eliminated all these polluting mental defilements, he then gains unwavering Faith, unshakable Confidence and absolutely immovable and imperturbable Conviction in the blessed Buddha thus: Worthy, honourable and perfectly self-Enlightened is the Buddha! Fully consummated in knowledge and behaviour, totally transcended, expert in all dimensions, knower of all worlds, unsurpassable trainer of those who can be tamed, both teacher and guide of gods as well as humans, blessed, exalted, awakened & enlightened is the Buddha! He gains unwavering Faith, Confidence & Conviction in the Dhamma thus: Perfectly formulated is the Buddha-Dhamma, visible right here and now, immediately effective, timeless, inviting each and everyone to come and see for themselves, inspect, examine and verify... Leading each and everyone through progress towards perfection! Directly observable, experiencable & realizable by each intelligence! He gains unwavering Faith, Confidence and Conviction in the Sangha thus: Perfectly training is this Noble Sangha community of Buddha's Noble disciples: Training the right way, the true way, the good way, the direct way! Therefore do these 8 kinds of individuals, these four Noble pairs, deserve both gifts, self-sacrifice, offerings, hospitality and reverential salutation even with joined palms, since this Noble Sangha community of the Buddha's Noble disciples, is indeed an unsurpassable and forever unsurpassed field of merit, in this world, for this world, to honour, support, award, respect, and protect! When he has given up, left and eliminated these mental pollutions he knows: I am convinced by steady unwavering Faith & Confidence in the Buddha... in the Dhamma... in the Sangha... He therefore gains enthusiasm for the goal, gains inspiration from the Dhamma, & gains the gladness connected with this true Dhamma! When gladdened, a rapturous joy is born in him; being joyous in mind, his body becomes tranquil; his body being tranquil, he feels happiness; and the mind of him, who is happy becomes concentrated into full intense absorption! <....> Passing it on to the next generation! Source: Majjhima Nikya MN 7 Vatthupama Sutta: The Simile of the Cloth! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.007.nypo.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #116882 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... epsteinrob Hi Howard. Sarah recently advised that I consult you on my problem with 'physical existence,' so I'm glad you came by. :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > --------------------------------------------- > Rob E.: > It's just a question of whether the path is one of understanding of Dhamma > and everyday life without an additional practice, or whether one also > applies the study of Dhamma in meditation. > -------------------------------------------- > HCW: > In meditation, and in attempting ongoing mindfulness & introspection - > especially in guarding the senses. > ------------------------------------------- My senses need a more effective guard I think. Maybe I'll get an 'inner guard dog.' Otherwise my love of ice cream cones may go forward unfettered. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > HCW: > > I DO think that the > > noble 8-fold path as taught by the Buddha in the suttas is at the > > "macroscopic level," although like all "things" at that level is imputed > upon a vast > > array of far simpler, interrelated mental and physical phenomena - > namas and > > rupas. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > I agree that the macroscopic goals and activities break down into namas > and rupas. I don't think this stops us from engaging the macroscopic level > though. > --------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > That is the level we grasp most easily, but in acting at the > macroscopic level, what actually is happening occurs at the microscopic level. An > analogy from physics: Sitting on a chair actually involves interactions at > the subatomic energy level. > ---------------------------------------------------- Very true, the point being that one needn't be conscious of all levels for them to take place, and we may not fully understand what is being developed when we engage in Buddhist practice, whether studying or 'sitting.' Yet we know intuitively that certain practices go in the right direction. --------------------------------------------------- Rob E. > Well, I think what is clear is that the dsg view is a coherent and > consistent one, emanating from a very specific interpretation of the commentaries > to both sutta and Abhidhamma, and that such a view is reflected in some of > the ideas in the commentaries that are not directly spoken of in the sutta > pitaka. I don't think it's a matter of individual opinion, but of a > specific movement within Theravada. > ----------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > That "movement" isn't a disembodied force! ;-) It comes about from > people, their beliefs, and their actions, especially thinking and teaching. > ----------------------------------------------------- True, not a disembodied force, and yet, via mutual interaction, a coordinated one. Harmonious streams of cittas running side by side. :-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #116883 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Sarah) - In a message dated 8/19/2011 2:31:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. Sarah recently advised that I consult you on my problem with 'physical existence,' so I'm glad you came by. :-) ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Sarah has more confidence in my "consulting" than I do! LOL! (But that confidence will diminish after reading this post, I think! ;-) ------------------------------------------------ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > --------------------------------------------- > Rob E.: > It's just a question of whether the path is one of understanding of Dhamma > and everyday life without an additional practice, or whether one also > applies the study of Dhamma in meditation. > -------------------------------------------- > HCW: > In meditation, and in attempting ongoing mindfulness & introspection - > especially in guarding the senses. > ------------------------------------------- My senses need a more effective guard I think. Maybe I'll get an 'inner guard dog.' Otherwise my love of ice cream cones may go forward unfettered. --------------------------------------------- HCW: ;-) -------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > HCW: > > I DO think that the > > noble 8-fold path as taught by the Buddha in the suttas is at the > > "macroscopic level," although like all "things" at that level is imputed > upon a vast > > array of far simpler, interrelated mental and physical phenomena - > namas and > > rupas. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > I agree that the macroscopic goals and activities break down into namas > and rupas. I don't think this stops us from engaging the macroscopic level > though. > --------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > That is the level we grasp most easily, but in acting at the > macroscopic level, what actually is happening occurs at the microscopic level. An > analogy from physics: Sitting on a chair actually involves interactions at > the subatomic energy level. > ---------------------------------------------------- Very true, the point being that one needn't be conscious of all levels for them to take place, and we may not fully understand what is being developed when we engage in Buddhist practice, whether studying or 'sitting.' Yet we know intuitively that certain practices go in the right direction. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: We know it from experience in fact. Certain practices are conducive to peace and insight, while others are not. ------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------- Rob E. > Well, I think what is clear is that the dsg view is a coherent and > consistent one, emanating from a very specific interpretation of the commentaries > to both sutta and Abhidhamma, and that such a view is reflected in some of > the ideas in the commentaries that are not directly spoken of in the sutta > pitaka. I don't think it's a matter of individual opinion, but of a > specific movement within Theravada. > ----------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > That "movement" isn't a disembodied force! ;-) It comes about from > people, their beliefs, and their actions, especially thinking and teaching. > ----------------------------------------------------- True, not a disembodied force, and yet, via mutual interaction, a coordinated one. Harmonious streams of cittas running side by side. :-) -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, that is my perspective. And it seems to me that sila divorced from such a perspective is impossible to address. Abhidhamma seems to say little to nothing about interaction among experiential streams, presenting its teaching almost entirely as if there were but one namarupic stream. The suttas, OTOH, say much about interaction among "beings". ---------------------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116884 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... nilovg Hi Howard, Op 19-aug-2011, om 13:51 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Abhidhamma seems to say > little to nothing about interaction among experiential streams, > presenting its > teaching almost entirely as if there were but one namarupic stream. > The > suttas, OTOH, say much about interaction among "beings". ----- N: The Patthanaa deals with what you like to call interaction. -- Nina. #116885 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: KENs theories. nilovg Dear Ken H, Op 19-aug-2011, om 4:55 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > Thanks, Nina, I agree with you that we can't hear enough about the > present moment. It is all there is, and all there ever will be. > When it ends, everything ends. The next universe will be an > entirely new one. > > When we know that, how could we get attached to anything: or upset > about anything? :-) ----- N: Very true. We still become attached or upset but these are only short moments that are gone, gone. What you say is exactly in the Tiika to the Sangiitisutta I am studying right now. It is about overcoming nine bases of anger, and among them being angry about injury done to someone dear. The tiika says that there are only conditioned realities, namely the five khandhas. What is called being (satto) are conditioned realities (sankhaara), lasting for a short period (ittarakaala), momentary, who is annoyed with whom? ------ Nina. #116886 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: KENs theories. nilovg Dear pt, Op 19-aug-2011, om 7:53 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > For me, when I was just starting with the suttas and then > abhidhamma, consciousness is one thing I couldn't quite get what it > was. Because it's so fundamental to all experiejces, and so it > seems it's always there. Even now, most of the time, there's the > assumption somewhere there in the back of the mind that it's all > one and the same thing that lasts and will go on lasting. Hence why > I like abhidhamma - it describes consciousness in various > permutations and allows to sort of disidentify from it and > (occasionally) see it as just another phenomenon. Nothing special. ----- N: Very well observed and expressed. The Abhidhamma truly helps and we can't hear enough of the present moment as Ken H said. So long as the wrong view of self has not been eradicated it is still there in the back of the mind. It means, we need listening to the Dhamma more and more. ----- Nina. #116887 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 8/19/2011 9:45:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 19-aug-2011, om 13:51 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Abhidhamma seems to say > little to nothing about interaction among experiential streams, > presenting its > teaching almost entirely as if there were but one namarupic stream. > The > suttas, OTOH, say much about interaction among "beings". ----- N: The Patthanaa deals with what you like to call interaction. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Does it not just deal with interactions within a single mind stream? --------------------------------------------- -- Nina. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116888 From: Ken O Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:44 am Subject: Re: Nimitta (was [dsg] Re: Smell etc, inseparable rupas ashkenn2k Dear Rob E >Well that analogy begs a very interesting question - are the pixels on your >television "more real" than the picture they form? I think they are two levels >of perception, but I don't think one is more "actual" than the other. >Conventional and ultimate view of realities are both valid in a different field >of endeavor. We would think it was very strange if a scientist walked around >outside of the lab with his microscope glued to his face so he could continue to > >see the molecules in "everyday life," yet the knowledge he has from seeing >directly is very valuable. > > >Even the arahant adopts the "conventional view" [but without any delusions] so >that he can walk, eat, and talk to people. But he has access to the >"microscopic" view, so he can go to the finer level of knowledge when it is >appropriate. Also it will inform his view so that he doesn't cling to >conventional objects. KO: The reasons for a convetional view of dhamma because the reality of what we experience are convetional reality. the text desribe direct seeing is only possible through constant reflection, investigating the nature of dhamma to develop to purification of view level. The difference of conventional and direct seeing is the level of our panna and not because this is conventional we do not follow. If it is, then listening of dhamma will be pointless since it is conventional. We should not be concern about two level of perception, it is the conventional preception we should understand, only through a long process of understanding the conventional preception, then the nama and rupa perception could arise. >Maybe you can say a little bit more about how one can "understand the nature of >dhammas" by perceiving the nimitta, and how the nimitta relates to the dhamma >that it represents - is it a fine, exact replica of the dhamma and its activity? > >Is it a representation that is more general or that shows how the dhamma >operates? > >In this sense, what level of "understanding" and what type of understanding >qualifies as satipatthana? >I see the value in this example, and I believe that the mundane path can develop > >through conventional understanding, leading to greater awareness. However, I am >quite sure that many on dsg will say that this conventional example does not >constitute true satipatthana - that at the very least it has to be a nimitta of >a momentary dhamma to qualify for the knowledge of satipatthana. KO: The general description of understanding of dhamma is understanding the general characteristic of anatta, anicca and dukkha or specific characteristics of dhamma. Just like when we see a beautiful picture, craving arise. It could condition the arisen of panna which sees that craving of such object brings dukka, or such object is subject to destruction, since it is impermanent it brings dukkha. Or the craving itself as a danger, brings dukkha. The text clearly stipulates the difference between mundane and supramundane is one with taints and one without. It never say one with concept and one without concept. Or because of concept there is no development of panna. > >That is sensible. However, I am just trying to figure out whether our >understanding of dhammas at this level can qualify as satipatthana and be a true > >contribution to development of the path. I think it can, but I think many here >would disagree. > >I wonder if you think that the mundane path, as you describe, will lead >eventually to development of the noble path with more direct seeing, or do you >think they are two separate tracks as many here believe? KO: There are two bhavanas, samatha and vipassana which both end at purification of view which develop further leads to enlightment. In the text or in the commentaries, there is never a statement said that the object of mundane satipatthana must be a nama and rupa in order to quality it as satipatthana. If it is, the text would have not mention about the mediation of the foul or body parts. Ken O #116889 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:06 am Subject: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 8/19/2011 2:31:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Hi Howard. > Sarah recently advised that I consult you on my problem with 'physical > existence,' so I'm glad you came by. :-) > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Sarah has more confidence in my "consulting" than I do! LOL! (But that > confidence will diminish after reading this post, I think! ;-) > ------------------------------------------------ I think Sarah can count on both of us to be consistently difficult! :-) ---------------------------------------------------------- Rob E.: > ...the point being that one needn't be conscious of all levels for > them to take place, and we may not fully understand what is being > developed when we engage in Buddhist practice, whether studying or 'sitting.' Yet > we know intuitively that certain practices go in the right direction. > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > We know it from experience in fact. Certain practices are conducive to > peace and insight, while others are not. > ------------------------------------------------ Like you, I trust the experience of "peace and insight" when these arise. My first instinct is not to doubt that it is really "peace and insight" but a cleverly disguised unwholesome substitute. Although I am on guard for hidden subtle 'junk' that is sure to be lurking about, the "peace and insight" parts of the experience are taken as "peace and insight" unless something seems really off. > --------------------------------------------------- > > Rob E. > > Well, I think what is clear is that the dsg view is a coherent and > > consistent one, emanating from a very specific interpretation of the > commentaries > > to both sutta and Abhidhamma, and that such a view is reflected in some > of > > the ideas in the commentaries that are not directly spoken of in the > sutta > > pitaka. I don't think it's a matter of individual opinion, but of a > > specific movement within Theravada. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > HCW: > > That "movement" isn't a disembodied force! ;-) It comes about from > > people, their beliefs, and their actions, especially thinking and > teaching. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > True, not a disembodied force, and yet, via mutual interaction, a > coordinated one. Harmonious streams of cittas running side by side. :-) > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Yes, that is my perspective. And it seems to me that sila divorced > from such a perspective is impossible to address. Abhidhamma seems to say > little to nothing about interaction among experiential streams, presenting its > teaching almost entirely as if there were but one namarupic stream. The > suttas, OTOH, say much about interaction among "beings". > ---------------------------------------------------- That is a good point. It seems to fall into the kind of individualism that Mahayana has used as a critique of Theravada in general. Of course, Theravada has metta, sympathetic joy and the other immeasurables, which stand up perfectly well with Mahayana's emphasis on compassion, but it depends on how the immeasurables are seen and what their nature is seen as. If metta is only seen as an arising dhamma for the person experiencing it and isn't seen as being a bridge between "streams of cittas," ie, one individual and another, then it is not a real sense of caring about the other person. Without caring about the other person as a person, it is difficult to see how lovingkindness or sympathetic joy are really true responses. There is no "heart" left to respond in a true way, and no "other person" to really be loving or sympathetic too. So what's the point? I think the view that includes both the microscopic understanding of conditional reality and the truth of our conventional life while it lasts and how we affect each other, is the most balanced path to tread. Again, there is universal acceptance of the importance of the good friend, the spiritual companion with whom one shares the Dhamma. And there is universal acceptance of the importance of the Sangha. Those are conventional relationships, not single dhammas, and if we see them as "unreal" I think that is done at the peril of our understanding of the path. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #116890 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:29 am Subject: Nimitta (was [dsg] Re: Smell etc, inseparable rupas epsteinrob Hi Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Rob E > > >Well that analogy begs a very interesting question - are the pixels on your > >television "more real" than the picture they form? I think they are two levels > >of perception, but I don't think one is more "actual" than the other. > >Conventional and ultimate view of realities are both valid in a different field > > >of endeavor. We would think it was very strange if a scientist walked around > >outside of the lab with his microscope glued to his face so he could continue to > > > >see the molecules in "everyday life," yet the knowledge he has from seeing > >directly is very valuable. > > > > > >Even the arahant adopts the "conventional view" [but without any delusions] so > >that he can walk, eat, and talk to people. But he has access to the > >"microscopic" view, so he can go to the finer level of knowledge when it is > >appropriate. Also it will inform his view so that he doesn't cling to > >conventional objects. > > KO: The reasons for a conventional view of dhamma because the reality of what we > experience are conventional reality. the text describe direct seeing is only > possible through constant reflection, investigating the nature of dhamma to > develop to purification of view level. This is good to know in its own right. Constant reflection, in my view, is a form of meditation/contemplation that amounts to a "formal pracice." > The difference of conventional and > direct seeing is the level of our panna and not because this is conventional we > do not follow. If it is, then listening of dhamma will be pointless since it is > conventional. Good point too! > We should not be concern about two level of perception, it is the > conventional perception we should understand, only through a long process of > understanding the conventional perception, then the nama and rupa perception > could arise. I believe that too. There is a pathway between the mundane path and ultimate understanding, but many here do not see it that way. We are meant to live our conventional lives with the Dhamma in mind, not just think about namas and rupas while we are drinking, robbing and stealing. :-) [that was a joke] > >Maybe you can say a little bit more about how one can "understand the nature of > > >dhammas" by perceiving the nimitta, and how the nimitta relates to the dhamma > >that it represents - is it a fine, exact replica of the dhamma and its activity? > > > >Is it a representation that is more general or that shows how the dhamma > >operates? > > > >In this sense, what level of "understanding" and what type of understanding > >qualifies as satipatthana? > > > >I see the value in this example, and I believe that the mundane path can develop > > > >through conventional understanding, leading to greater awareness. However, I am > > >quite sure that many on dsg will say that this conventional example does not > >constitute true satipatthana - that at the very least it has to be a nimitta of > > >a momentary dhamma to qualify for the knowledge of satipatthana. > > > KO: The general description of understanding of dhamma is understanding the > general characteristic of anatta, anicca and dukkha or specific characteristics > of dhamma. Just like when we see a beautiful picture, craving arise. It could > condition the arisen of panna which sees that craving of such object brings > dukkha, or such object is subject to destruction, since it is impermanent it > brings dukkha. Or the craving itself as a danger, brings dukkha. The text > clearly stipulates the difference between mundane and supramundane is one with > taints and one without. It never say one with concept and one without > concept. Or because of concept there is no development of panna. This is an excellent rundown and I agree with you strongly. I think it is a big mistake to put the normal perception of life to the side and say that it is not eligible for applying the Dhamma, or to noticing the craving and clinging that arises in relation to conventional objects. This is what we really experience, and to ignore it and keep thinking about little individual dhammas that we can't see, is just an intellectual distraction. If we do take the time to contemplate namas and rupas and think about them on the paramatha level, that is a separate valuable practice in its own right. I am not saying that such a contemplative practice is not important. And I think it is a good contemplation to look at the things of everyday life and to understand that they really do break down into momentary namas and rupas. I think that is valuable contemplation of the Dhamma as well. But I think it's also most important, as you say, to include the conventional experiences we have that naturally arise all day and look at them in terms of the three marks that they show and the craving and clinging that arises. There is nothing wrong with thinking, when we have sadness because someone has left or because our rug got stained, "this is not my self, it is impermanent and can not bring real satisfaction because it is not self and temporary" and to see how that relates to the craving and clinging that arises. If we see someone who we are uncomfortable around and aversion arises, we should look at that aversion and see its nature and apply the Dhamma to that too. > >That is sensible. However, I am just trying to figure out whether our > >understanding of dhammas at this level can qualify as satipatthana and be a true > > > >contribution to development of the path. I think it can, but I think many here > >would disagree. > > > >I wonder if you think that the mundane path, as you describe, will lead > >eventually to development of the noble path with more direct seeing, or do you > >think they are two separate tracks as many here believe? > > KO: There are two bhavanas, samatha and vipassana which both end at > purification of view which develop further leads to enlightenment. In the text > or in the commentaries, there is never a statement said that the object > of mundane satipatthana must be a nama and rupa in order to qualify it as > satipatthana. If it is, the text would have not mention about the meditation of > the foul or body parts. Thanks, Ken, I think that is very good reasoning and I agree. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #116891 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 8/19/2011 6:06:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 8/19/2011 2:31:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Hi Howard. > Sarah recently advised that I consult you on my problem with 'physical > existence,' so I'm glad you came by. :-) > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Sarah has more confidence in my "consulting" than I do! LOL! (But that > confidence will diminish after reading this post, I think! ;-) > ------------------------------------------------ I think Sarah can count on both of us to be consistently difficult! :-) ------------------------------------------------------- HCW: I'd like to say "We try," but, really, it comes naturally!! LOL! ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------- Rob E.: > ...the point being that one needn't be conscious of all levels for > them to take place, and we may not fully understand what is being > developed when we engage in Buddhist practice, whether studying or 'sitting.' Yet > we know intuitively that certain practices go in the right direction. > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > We know it from experience in fact. Certain practices are conducive to > peace and insight, while others are not. > ------------------------------------------------ Like you, I trust the experience of "peace and insight" when these arise. My first instinct is not to doubt that it is really "peace and insight" but a cleverly disguised unwholesome substitute. Although I am on guard for hidden subtle 'junk' that is sure to be lurking about, the "peace and insight" parts of the experience are taken as "peace and insight" unless something seems really off. > --------------------------------------------------- > > Rob E. > > Well, I think what is clear is that the dsg view is a coherent and > > consistent one, emanating from a very specific interpretation of the > commentaries > > to both sutta and Abhidhamma, and that such a view is reflected in some > of > > the ideas in the commentaries that are not directly spoken of in the > sutta > > pitaka. I don't think it's a matter of individual opinion, but of a > > specific movement within Theravada. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > HCW: > > That "movement" isn't a disembodied force! ;-) It comes about from > > people, their beliefs, and their actions, especially thinking and > teaching. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > True, not a disembodied force, and yet, via mutual interaction, a > coordinated one. Harmonious streams of cittas running side by side. :-) > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Yes, that is my perspective. And it seems to me that sila divorced > from such a perspective is impossible to address. Abhidhamma seems to say > little to nothing about interaction among experiential streams, presenting its > teaching almost entirely as if there were but one namarupic stream. The > suttas, OTOH, say much about interaction among "beings". > ---------------------------------------------------- That is a good point. It seems to fall into the kind of individualism that Mahayana has used as a critique of Theravada in general. Of course, Theravada has metta, sympathetic joy and the other immeasurables, which stand up perfectly well with Mahayana's emphasis on compassion, but it depends on how the immeasurables are seen and what their nature is seen as. If metta is only seen as an arising dhamma for the person experiencing it and isn't seen as being a bridge between "streams of cittas," ie, one individual and another, then it is not a real sense of caring about the other person. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: IMO, that's so. ------------------------------------------------ Without caring about the other person as a person, it is difficult to see how lovingkindness or sympathetic joy are really true responses. There is no "heart" left to respond in a true way, and no "other person" to really be loving or sympathetic too. So what's the point? -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Indeed! But, in fact, there ARE other persons just as there is oneself: Persons, as ever-changing aggregates of mental and physical qualities and operations are easily recognizable (via the mind door). If someone really thinks there are no such things as persons and yet engages in conversations with them, s/he is truly deluded. Of course there are some conventions we erroneously adopt with respect to persons. Namely, we view them as individual things (rather than as composites) and we view them as precisely delineable entities with own-being/self/identity and separate from all else. A whirlpool in a river is not an individual thing but a composite, and it is not a delineable entity with own-being/self/identity and separate from the rest of the river. But it is not nothing at all! The same is true of persons. ------------------------------------------------ I think the view that includes both the microscopic understanding of conditional reality and the truth of our conventional life while it lasts and how we affect each other, is the most balanced path to tread. Again, there is universal acceptance of the importance of the good friend, the spiritual companion with whom one shares the Dhamma. And there is universal acceptance of the importance of the Sangha. Those are conventional relationships, not single dhammas, and if we see them as "unreal" I think that is done at the peril of our understanding of the path. Best, Robert E. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116892 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:10 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) ptaus1 Hi Alex, RobE, > > Alex: Practically, external "conceptual" objects still are and you have to use them. It is only talk about "concepts don't exist. They have no characteristics". No characteristics, huh? Well why do you use one object for one thing (ex: spoon) and another object (ex: fork) for another purpose? Aren't they both supposed to be undifferentiated and non-existent things with no characteristics? > > > > What is the use of philosophy that gets refuted through the day? > RobE: You make a worthwhile point. pt: I diasgree. And quite strongly, I think, in that the issue raised completely misses the point. First, we have to keep in mind what's the purpose of Dhamma, and abhidhamma for that matter? Imo, it is to describe the truth, which when understood leads to the end of samsara. Second, how is that truth described? Imo, by pointing out dhammas and their characteristics - anatta, etc. So, i guess my point is that samsara will not stop no matter how well you use your knives and forks. Neither will samasra stop if you stop using your knives and forks completely. Neither will it stop if you try to see the anatta nature of knives and forks. Etc. Samsara will only stop once anatta nature of feeling and other khandas is seen. Feeling and other khandas are dhammas. So i guess another point that has to be made is that there's nothing wrong with concepts. They are very useful in sustaining life. But sustaining life is not the same as ending samsara. Further, there's no antagonism between concepts and dhammas. They are both essential part of the process of cognition. Hence why the only way for us to actually learn Dhamma is thanks to concepts. But when it comes to ending samsara, it will only happen when dhammas are understood. In practice, or insight in other words. So, as an example, that would mean that anatta nature of thinking (dhamma) about knives and forks is understood amidst the actual thinking about knives.and forks. Or that concentration (dhamma) on a knife or a fork is anatta. Or that perception (dhamma) of a knife or a fork is anatta. Etc. However, if we are just stuck thinking about whether knives and forks are exist or not, is this not just philosophying on a conceptual level (so no actual insight, towards which conceptual understanding of Dhamma should stear us)? Furthermore, is this not attanuditthi?! In other words, it's not just that we are missing the point of Dhamma, but we are actually engaging in wrong view?! Best wishes pt #116893 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:27 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Alex, RobE, > > > > Alex: Practically, external "conceptual" objects still are and you have to use them. It is only talk about "concepts don't exist. They have no characteristics". No characteristics, huh? Well why do you use one object for one thing (ex: spoon) and another object (ex: fork) for another purpose? Aren't they both supposed to be undifferentiated and non-existent things with no characteristics? > > > > > > What is the use of philosophy that gets refuted through the day? > > > RobE: You make a worthwhile point. > > pt: I diasgree. And quite strongly, I think, in that the issue raised completely misses the point. > > First, we have to keep in mind what's the purpose of Dhamma, and abhidhamma for that matter? Imo, it is to describe the truth, which when understood leads to the end of samsara. That is one interpretation of the path. My concern is that the intellectual involvement with "understanding the description of the truth," while important and valuable in order to have clarity about the ultimate units of experience, can actually block or supplant the path as something that is "lived." I don't think the idea that conventional reality is unreal and that the unseen view of momentary dhammas is real is necessarily a healthy perspective. When the mundane path is applied to everyday life as it is known and lived, and at the same time contemplation is given to the units of experience and how they arise from moment to moment, this gives a healthy balance and a healthy path. But dismissing everyday experience in favor of 'right concepts' does not seem healthy to me. > Second, how is that truth described? Imo, by pointing out dhammas and their characteristics - anatta, etc. > > So, i guess my point is that samsara will not stop no matter how well you use your knives and forks. Neither will samsara stop if you stop using your knives and forks completely. Neither will it stop if you try to see the anatta nature of knives and forks. Etc. Samsara will only stop once anatta nature of feeling and other khandas is seen. Feeling and other khandas are dhammas. I don't agree with this absolute distinction, which is quite polarized between everyday experiences and dhammas, nor the distinction between knives and forks - everyday activities - and feelings. Knives and forks are experienced as rupas; feelings as namas; they are both objects of experience. I agree that the attachment that arises, or feelings that arise, can be looked into and seen as what they are. I agree that one can experience physical experience as rupas. There can be insight on the mundane level into what is arising during everyday life. But to intellectually map a degree of microscopic namas and rupas that are not really experienced just provides an intellectual overlay. I think it's better to be aware of the namarupa nature of what arises without worrying about whether it is conventional or paramatha and see the characteristics, the attachments, the feelings that attend it, rather than intellectualize it. I think it's possible that there could be more common ground in that idea than might meet the eye. > So i guess another point that has to be made is that there's nothing wrong with concepts. They are very useful in sustaining life. But sustaining life is not the same as ending samsara. I don't think that's really the question. It is whether what you are calling concepts can be objects of awareness. The philosophy that is often subscribed to on dsg says 'no,' but that is a kind of intellectualism as well. To assert that what you experience as objects and beings is 'just concepts' when you don't see them as such, is to supply another intellectual overlay onto what is actually experienced. I believe that takes you further away from actually experiencing the realities of the moment, rather than bringing you closer. The concepts of dhammas in one's mind are less real than the conglomerated realities of bodies and beings that you call concepts. When one is naturally involved with experiences and sees *them,* not the concept of them as dhammas, as the actual dhammas that are arising now, then one begins to experience what the real dhammas are like. Seeing the current world as concepts and the intellectual world of descriptions of dhammas the real world reverses what are actually realities for you and what are currently actually concepts for you. The real taste, smell and feel of dhammas is not in the description. So it comes down to what is the role of pariyatti? I think it's introductory, to understand what the nature of the description is, but then one has to let that go and experience the real feeling and sight and smell of what exists, not keep thinking one's way through experience. > Further, there's no antagonism between concepts and dhammas. They are both essential part of the process of cognition. Hence why the only way for us to actually learn Dhamma is thanks to concepts. But when it comes to ending samsara, it will only happen when dhammas are understood. In practice, or insight in other words. What will cause insight to come? What kind of practice? I think that the practice that causes awareness and understanding to develop is more experience-oriented and less intellectual. The intellect should be applied to experience in order feel, taste and smell the reality that is spoken of. And it should be done as a practice in my view, not as a happenstance that is waited for passively. > So, as an example, that would mean that anatta nature of thinking (dhamma) about knives and forks is understood amidst the actual thinking about knives and forks. Or that concentration (dhamma) on a knife or a fork is anatta. Or that perception (dhamma) of a knife or a fork is anatta. Etc. Such realization would indeed be valuable. And pariyatti takes that part of the way. But the immersion in life and practice with the Dhamma as guide is what gives real flesh to this endeavor and causes real experiences to come to light. > However, if we are just stuck thinking about whether knives and forks are exist or not, is this not just philosophying on a conceptual level (so no actual insight, towards which conceptual understanding of Dhamma should stear us)? Furthermore, is this not attanuditthi?! In other words, it's not just that we are missing the point of Dhamma, but we are actually engaging in wrong view?! The question is whether that is not already taking place, whether the assertion that dhammas alone are real and that concepts cannot be the object of awareness is inherently denying the existence of knives and forks. It is my view that Right View is not to deny physical or conventional existence, but to see that it has both a conventional and expanded aspect that can be understood, and that both are part of its actuality, to be further understood and detached from. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #116894 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 8/19/2011 6:06:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Hi Howard. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Robert (and Sarah) - > > > > In a message dated 8/19/2011 2:31:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > epsteinrob@ writes: > > > > Hi Howard. > > Sarah recently advised that I consult you on my problem with 'physical > > existence,' so I'm glad you came by. :-) > > ------------------------------------------------ > > HCW: > > Sarah has more confidence in my "consulting" than I do! LOL! (But > that > > confidence will diminish after reading this post, I think! ;-) > > ------------------------------------------------ > > I think Sarah can count on both of us to be consistently difficult! > > :-) > ------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I'd like to say "We try," but, really, it comes naturally!! LOL! > ------------------------------------------------------ :-) > ------------------------------------------------------ Rob E.: > Without caring about the other person as a person, it is difficult to see > how lovingkindness or sympathetic joy are really true responses. There is > no "heart" left to respond in a true way, and no "other person" to really be > loving or sympathetic too. So what's the point? > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Indeed! > But, in fact, there ARE other persons just as there is oneself: > Persons, as ever-changing aggregates of mental and physical qualities and > operations are easily recognizable (via the mind door). If someone really thinks > there are no such things as persons and yet engages in conversations with > them, s/he is truly deluded. Of course there are some conventions we > erroneously adopt with respect to persons. Namely, we view them as individual > things (rather than as composites) and we view them as precisely delineable > entities with own-being/self/identity and separate from all else. That is well described. > A whirlpool in a river is not an individual thing but a composite, and > it is not a delineable entity with own-being/self/identity and separate > from the rest of the river. But it is not nothing at all! The same is true of > persons. > ------------------------------------------------ That is well put. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #116895 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:46 am Subject: Not Involved! bhikkhu5 Friends: Clinging to Wrong Views is Catastrophic! The Buddha often emphasized wrong view as thee most detrimental: When one has imagined, assumed, constructed, approved of and authorized Wrong Views & opinions, then one is relying that, which is unstable & unsafe! Clinging to these long cherished wrong views, are not easily relinquished... One adheres to these persuasions having chosen them from among many hypothetical ideas, laying down one assumption, just to take up a another new fancy theory! A purified man, however, does indeed not form any view about anything anywhere! He is not involved..! Having cut out all deceptions illusions and conceits, where could such a clear-sighted man ever be driven? An involved person, however, engages easily in disputes about opposed ideas, but how can one ever dispute with one, who is not involved? He has neither taken up, nor laid down anything, but has shaken off having any view at all! Sutta-Nipta 784-787 Edited excerpt. <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #116896 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:32 pm Subject: Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... szmicio Hi Rob E, > That is a good point. It seems to fall into the kind of individualism that Mahayana has used as a critique of Theravada in general. Of course, Theravada has metta, sympathetic joy and the other immeasurables, which stand up perfectly well with Mahayana's emphasis on compassion, but it depends on how the immeasurables are seen and what their nature is seen as. L: Theras exposed Dhamma in a particular way. They knew the Mahayana minds. They resigned to teach more on compassion due to they know that concepts of compassion can be dangerous to some people, I think. > If metta is only seen as an arising dhamma for the person experiencing it and isn't seen as being a bridge between "streams of cittas," ie, one individual and another, then it is not a real sense of caring about the other person. Without caring about the other person as a person, it is difficult to see how lovingkindness or sympathetic joy are really true responses. There is no "heart" left to respond in a true way, and no "other person" to really be loving or sympathetic too. So what's the point? L: This is the highest metta,if it's not taken for yours, just conditioned element. > I think the view that includes both the microscopic understanding of conditional reality and the truth of our conventional life while it lasts and how we affect each other, is the most balanced path to tread. > > Again, there is universal acceptance of the importance of the good friend, the spiritual companion with whom one shares the Dhamma. And there is universal acceptance of the importance of the Sangha. Those are conventional relationships, not single dhammas, and if we see them as "unreal" I think that is done at the peril of our understanding of the path. L: If you're saying on the paying respect to triple Gem: Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. This is a praise to the qualities of this tree. Best wishes Lukas #116897 From: Ken O Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... ashkenn2k Dear Lukas the object for the meditation of metta is a being. this is in accordance to Visud. Even the object for metta sutta is beings. It is not the role of metta to see conditioned things, it is panna. When panna see metta as condition element in the highest sense, metta is the object. When we develop metta, it is the metta cetasika that we are developing and not panna. So with the understanding of the role of each cetasikas, then we know how dhamma works and not assuming every arisen of dhamma there must be nama and rupa in order for development of panna. Just like sila, the object of sila can be a being or conceptual objects, even if panna arise with it. Ken O > >From: Lukas >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Saturday, 20 August 2011 14:32:32 >Subject: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely >drea... > > >Hi Rob E, > >> That is a good point. It seems to fall into the kind of individualism that >>Mahayana has used as a critique of Theravada in general. Of course, Theravada >>has metta, sympathetic joy and the other immeasurables, which stand up perfectly >> >> >>well with Mahayana's emphasis on compassion, but it depends on how the >>immeasurables are seen and what their nature is seen as. >> > >L: Theras exposed Dhamma in a particular way. They knew the Mahayana minds. They > > >resigned to teach more on compassion due to they know that concepts of >compassion can be dangerous to some people, I think. > > >> If metta is only seen as an arising dhamma for the person experiencing it and >>isn't seen as being a bridge between "streams of cittas," ie, one individual and >> >> >>another, then it is not a real sense of caring about the other person. Without >>caring about the other person as a person, it is difficult to see how >>lovingkindness or sympathetic joy are really true responses. There is no "heart" >> >> >>left to respond in a true way, and no "other person" to really be loving or >>sympathetic too. So what's the point? > >L: This is the highest metta,if it's not taken for yours, just conditioned >element. > >> I think the view that includes both the microscopic understanding of >>conditional reality and the truth of our conventional life while it lasts and >>how we affect each other, is the most balanced path to tread. >> >> >> Again, there is universal acceptance of the importance of the good friend, the > > >>spiritual companion with whom one shares the Dhamma. And there is universal >>acceptance of the importance of the Sangha. Those are conventional >>relationships, not single dhammas, and if we see them as "unreal" I think that >>is done at the peril of our understanding of the path. > >L: If you're saying on the paying respect to triple Gem: Buddha, Dhamma and >Sangha. This is a praise to the qualities of this tree. > > >Best wishes >Lukas > > > #116898 From: "philip" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! philofillet Hi Pt, Ken and all >I'll be glad to read further if KenH and Phil have more questions. Time restrictions will keep me from re-reading the whole thread, but was it finally agreed that according to the Dhamma, kusala abstention (virati? I forget the Pali) only occurs with vipasanna nana? It seems to me that that is what Ken was saying, though I'm not sure. And it is fine with me if that is the case, I'll abstain conditioned by akusala as well as kusala, and probably only akusala since there is not vipassana nana for me, but no problem with that when abstention is the point. I don't really care as long as the bad deed is avoided, by whatever means. Kusala may have conditions to develop, ever so gradually, but bad deeds must be avoided, if they aren't, having an interest in the ever-so-gradual development of kusala is like having an interest in sparkling drops of water in the middle of a house on fire, in my opinion. Thanks. Metta, Phil p.s since Pt seems to have less time to post here, perhaps Ken coud answer. #116899 From: "philip" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:32 pm Subject: Indian 2004, Lumbini Day One (Audio talks) philofillet Hi all I listened to about 40 mintues of this talk during a walk home from work, really some fascinating points. 1) Some things on nimitta, probably I've been told this before, but there are nimitta of rupas, and nimitta of concepts, so when we are seeing people, as we do, that's nimitta of concepts, awareness rarely of nimitta of rupas before sanna etc takes over and concept of people happens through the mind door processes. A,S was rather clear that nimitta of a paramattha dhamma is a concept, whatever is not a paramattha dhamma is a concept, so nimitta of paramattha dhamma, say rupa of visible object, is a concept. Sarah, the other day if I recall correctly you doubted that you said nimitta is akin to concept, so I assume you would also disagree that inimitta *is* concept, at least according to what I head in this talk? I think there is a tendency to discourage so many questions about nimitta, just whatever is there for awareness, develop understanding of it, but I don't think that's quite right, we are told that we should be precise about dhammas, so I will continue to ask more to clarify my understanding here. So nimitta is a concept, from what A.S said here, and not only nimitta of concept, but nimitta of visible object, rupa, is a concept. 2) What is the difference between dreaming when we are asleep, and the way we experience people and thinks, lost in the sea of concepts. This is the sort of thing I love hearing from A.S, I feel that rather than saying "there is only the presently arisen nama and rupa" as if we actually had awareness of it, it is more useful to better understand how we customarily go through life, and that is lost in the sea of concepts, under the roof of lobha, behind the black curtain of moha, etc, very effective metaphors for how faint our understanding is. Starting from there, gradually, panna develops. Jumping straight to "there is only the presently arisen nama and rupa" still seems like a kind of facile appropriation of penetrative panna. But I do understand that the reason Ken H and others speak in this terms is because it is in the context of debate on meditation, intentional practices etc, and that kind of jumping to deep panna is used in debate. But that's not for me, I like to hear more about how thick ignorance and lobha is, that's where panna has to grow, not by references to what is revealed by insight, in my opinion. Oh, the answer to the question above is that of course that when we are "awake" there are sense door processes mixed in with all the mind door processes that make up the sleeping dreaming. 3) A woman I don't know, Jill, I think, asked about the characteristics of sati, is it more intense (?) at times,and could that be because there are many moments of sati arising together, it is always fleeting, but why does it seem a *little* but less fleeting at times. Panna knows, said A.S. The woman said the reason she wants to know is that she doesn't want to think she is devleoping sati, but it is something else, there is so much clinging, so much wanting to have sati. I could relate to that. Panna knows, said A.S, if there is doubt, that means there is no panna. "If there is doubt, that means there is no panna." That is interesting, I guess it is a conventional or cultural meaning, but doubt could, it seems to me, to represent at least a kind of discrimination. I doubt there is sati, I see it as clinging to desire for sati, and that seems to me to be a level of panna. But I guess the point is that if there *was* panna on that point, there would be clear knowing that there was clinging to desire for sati, and not so much badgering you all about that here. But "if there is doubt, that means there is no panna" is interesting. Doubt in Abhidhamma is an akusala factor, so it is true, doubt and panna can't arise together. 4) Sarah asked about light, it is described in the commentaries as one of the conditions for seeing, but what is it? A.S says it is visible object. Jon says but what if there is pain from a glaring light, that means there must be hardness at the body sense, or some rupa at the body sense, mixed in. But it is hard to understand light as temperature, or pressure, or hardness. A.S said whatever the characteristic. Jon said it seems that the traditional definitions of how rupa is experienced (as hardness, as temperature, as pressure/motion etc) don't seem to cover all the ways it can be experienced. (Offhand, I wonder why he says so I can't personally imagine others..) That set off an exchange I remember kind of resenting from when I listened 6 or 7 years ago, Azita asking about motion is experienced, the characteristics of motion, and A.S refused to answer, just experience it, and that set off a bit of a ever-so-respectful mini-revolt by Sarah and Nina, should we stop reading them, you yourself have such a broad knowledge of Abhidhamma, can't it be helpful to know what the commentaries say, for example, about the characteristics of motion, how it manifests? I remember thinking Azita could have receieved a more helpful answer, and I remember finding out soon after that in Vism, I think, that motion is experienced as pressure (correct me if I'm wrong) and that could have been the answer then. So A.S was discouraging people from getting lost in books, but as Nina says as long as we keep coming back to the present moment implications of whatever we are reading, we can keep reading and learning theory. I think it's important to learn theory, otherwise we will form our own ideas based on meditation experience, for example, and is there any reason that guaranteed that such understandings of experience will not just be deluded? Better that understanding comes as confirmation of the theory taught by the great ones.... 5) A Thai woman asked about whether there can be helpful awareness of past experience and of course the answer is that there can be awareness of thinking, when we are not seeing visible object, hearing sound etc, we are thinking. Sarah says that we place so much value on the content of thinking. But thinking is just thinking, there can be awareness of it. So for me, lots of opportunities to develop awareness of thinking, of wanting, etc. If any moments of awareness of visible object, sound, harndess etc comes up, great, but I won't try to have it. No need to respond unless I have made any mistakes, this is a record for me as much as anything. Wrote very quickly, sorry for any typos, on the computer so shouldn't be too bad. Metta, Phil #116900 From: "philip" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:04 pm Subject: Re: Indian 2004, Lumbini Day One (Audio talks) philofillet Hi again all I will qualify the below >>Jumping straight to "there is only the presently arisen nama and rupa" still seems like a kind of facile appropriation of penetrative panna. But I do understand that the reason Ken H and others speak in this terms is because it is in the context of debate on meditation, intentional practices etc, and that kind of jumping to deep panna is used in debate. But that's not for me, I like to hear more about how thick ignorance and lobha is, that's where panna has to grow, not by references to what is revealed by insight, in my opinion. "There is only the presently arisen nama and rupa", ok, that is not so radical. What is it I have trouble with, I guess, is any kind of insistence that life be experienced in these terms, that because there is only the present nama and rupa there cannot be helpful conventional deeds and that they are not taught by the Buddha. The deeds are done conditioned by nama and rupa, of course, what else could they be conditioned by, but they are not experienced or insighted as done by nama and rupa, that is getting ahead of ourselves. We experience them as conceptual actions done by people (concepts) and that is where we are and that stage can't be skipped, panna has to develop gradually to see through the conventional deeds, ever so gradually. Metta, Phil #116901 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Indian 2004, Lumbini Day One (Audio talks) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Great report and I encourage others to listen too!(www.dhammastudygroup.org) Will read the rest more carefully later, but just a brief comment or two on nimitta: --- On Sat, 20/8/11, philip wrote: >1) Some things on nimitta, probably I've been told this before, but there are nimitta of rupas, and nimitta of concepts, so when we are seeing people, as we do, that's nimitta of concepts, awareness rarely of nimitta of rupas before sanna etc takes over and concept of people happens through the mind door processes. .... S: Yes. As I also mentioned recently, in the development of samatha, it is nimitta of concepts. ... >A,S was rather clear that nimitta of a paramattha dhamma is a concept, whatever is not a paramattha dhamma is a concept, so nimitta of paramattha dhamma, say rupa of visible object, is a concept. .... S: I think that's your deduction. If you ask her point blank, as Nina did a couple of times, whether nimitta of p.d is a concept, she'll never agree. In the beginning we learn that whatever is not a p.d is a concept, as you say, but this is an exception or 'grey area'. As mentioned, for all intents and purposes in the texts, it is treated as a reality. Hence we talk about awareness of feeling or attachment, even though in actuality the reality has fallen away and it is the nimitta of the reality which is experienced. See also more on n'avattabba in U.P. ('not mentioned') ..... >Sarah, the other day if I recall correctly you doubted that you said nimitta is akin to concept, so I assume you would also disagree that inimitta *is* concept, at least according to what I head in this talk? .... S: Again, see more on n'avattabba. There are nimittas of concepts and nimittas of realities as you mentioned. I don't know what 'inimitta' is? Animitta refers to nibbana, the dhamma which has no nimitta, no sign. ... >I think there is a tendency to discourage so many questions about nimitta, just whatever is there for awareness, develop understanding of it, but I don't think that's quite right, we are told that we should be precise about dhammas, so I will continue to ask more to clarify my understanding here. .... S: I think the point is just that it is the understanding of realities which actually leads to the understanding of what is meant by nimitta - the sign or shadow of the reality. Anyway, your questions are all good. .... >So nimitta is a concept, from what A.S said here, and not only nimitta of concept, but nimitta of visible object, rupa, is a concept. .... S: I'll be very interested to see your direct quote of her saying this. I don't think you'll find it! Metta Sarah ====== #116902 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:19 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and PT) - In a message dated 8/19/2011 11:28:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Knives and forks are experienced as rupas; feelings as namas; they are both objects of experience. ============================= Robert, I'm possibly not quite in line with you on the first part of this statement: Knives and forks are SAID to be seen and touched, but, in fact, they are constructed by sankharic operations and cognized via the mind door. What are more directly experienced are a good number of sight and touch - and maybe sound - sensations that are interrelated, and from these the mind then constructs percepts and concepts of knives and forks. The sights and bodily sensations and sounds are physical qualities more or less directly experienced. (They are, of course, also conceptually reified and mentally individuated, i.e. separated off from the flow of experience but that is another issue.) It is these qualities, these rupas, which are seen, felt, and heard, and not, as we colloquially say, the knives and forks. Note: I say the foregoing not on the basis of repeating what I have heard, but on the basis of introspection. With metta, Howard P. S. Perhaps we actually see this matter in the same way. Perhaps when you say that knives and forks are experienced as rupas, what you mean is that it is actually rupas that are experienced. In that case, there was no need for me to have written this. ;-) Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116903 From: "philip" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Indian 2004, Lumbini Day One (Audio talks) philofillet Hi Sarah >>As mentioned, for all intents and purposes in the texts, it is treated as a reality. Hence we talk about awareness of feeling or attachment, even though in actuality the reality has fallen away and it is the nimitta of the reality which is experienced. See also more on n'avattabba in U.P. ('not mentioned') Ph: Yes, for all intents and purposes a reality, as I've also heard Sayadaw U Silananda say. A "grey area" that is exception to the rule that whatever is not a p.d is a concept, fine for me. It must have been my induction that she said it was a concept, fair enough. Metta, Phil #116904 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... nilovg Hi Howard, Op 19-aug-2011, om 16:59 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: The Patthanaa deals with what you like to call interaction. > --------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Does it not just deal with interactions within a single mind stream? ---- N: Difficult to answer this. Let us go back to your original remarks: little to nothing about interaction among experiential streams, > presenting its > teaching almost entirely as if there were but one namarupic stream. > The > suttas, OTOH, say much about interaction among "beings".> ----- N: Perhaps you mean to say, the way conditions work on citta and cetasikas in different ways. I am thinking of object-condition, decisive support condition of object, and natural decicsive support-condition. As to the latter: climate, dwelling, friendship. Also the four great elements are support-condition for the derived ruupas. This does not concern a single mind-stream. Object-condition may not be to your satisfaction, since you see object as contents of citta. I cannot go into this more since I will have a break. ------- Nina. #116905 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: KENs theories:praise and blame. nilovg Hello Phil, Your post is an interesting example of praise and blame, only worldly conditions, as Lukas also emphasized. We should not attach much importance to them. Op 18-aug-2011, om 20:22 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > Understanding the reality of the present > > moment is a sure way to know the difference between paramattha > > dhammas and concepts. When the object is not a paramattha dhamma it > > a concept > > .... you are praising Ken H and I don't like that? > ----- N: Praise, this is insignificant, only a worldly condition. -------- > Ph: .... there is doubt whether cocky comments about understanding > the present moment at the paramattha level necessarily represent > any kind of bridge to understanding the present monent at the > paramattha level or whether on the other hand they can actually be > a sign of blindness to lobha moha behind it all. I don't say only > Ken H is at risk of that, just that he would have to be coronated > king of it, and that if there were a collection of his quotes I > would want to have a big rubber stamp with LOBHA and press it down > gently on every page. > -------- N: Blame, this is insignificant, only a worldly condition. > They are all gone, no more. Who is there to receive praise and > blame, or to express words of praise and words of blame? In the > ultimate sense; no Nina, no Phil, no Ken H. No person, only > conditioned dhammas. > -------- > > Ph: p.s I am still taking a break, which is why I am here! ;) ;) > ----- N: So am I. See you in about ten days. Nina. > #116906 From: "philip" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: KENs theories:praise and blame. philofillet > > .... you are praising Ken H and I don't like that? > > > ----- > N: Praise, this is insignificant, only a worldly condition. Ph: Yes, you are probably right. Just speculation on my part to say that since listening to and discussing Dhamma is said to be an important condition for developing panna, and since association with wise friends is also taught to be so vital, the confirmation of understanding that is expressed in words of praise or the correction of of views encouraged by critcal words could be factors in developing understanding. When someone hss, like you, established status (though conceptual) as kaliyana mitte? (wise friend) for so many people, their words are bound to be more predominant as conditioning factors, it's part of the dynamic of correction of view, development of understanding by Dhamma discussion...possibly. In any case it's best of course to stick to sharing our knowledge of what tge Buddha taught and what tge commentaries say, you are the best at doing that. (Is that empty praise or celebrating kusala? ) Possibly something to consider, whether praise and blame in Dhamma discussion are not as empty of meaning as they are telated to other topics. Have a nice break Nina. Metta, Phil > > Ph: .... there is doubt whether cocky comments about understanding > > the present moment at the paramattha level necessarily represent > > any kind of bridge to understanding the present monent at the > > paramattha level or whether on the other hand they can actually be > > a sign of blindness to lobha moha behind it all. I don't say only > > Ken H is at risk of that, just that he would have to be coronated > > king of it, and that if there were a collection of his quotes I > > would want to have a big rubber stamp with LOBHA and press it down > > gently on every page. > > > -------- > N: Blame, this is insignificant, only a worldly condition. > > They are all gone, no more. Who is there to receive praise and > > blame, or to express words of praise and words of blame? In the > > ultimate sense; no Nina, no Phil, no Ken H. No person, only > > conditioned dhammas. > > > -------- > > > > Ph: p.s I am still taking a break, which is why I am here! ;) ;) > > > ----- > N: So am I. See you in about ten days. > Nina. > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #116907 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:03 am Subject: Going Forth Faith! bhikkhu5 Friends: How is the Faith leading to the Going Forth? Having heard the Buddha speak, a householder or a householder's son or one born in some other family, hears that Buddha-Dhamma. On hearing this sublime Dhamma, he acquires faith in the Tathagata. Possessing that faith, he considers thus: Household life is crowded, cramped, frustrating & dusty! The Life gone forth is out in the wide open... It is not easy, while living in a home, to live this Noble life utterly perfect and pure, as a polished shell... Suppose I shave off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth from the home life into homelessness. On a later occasion, leaving behind any small or large fortune, leaving behind a small or a large circle of relatives, he shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robe, & then goes forth from the home life into the free and open homelessness... So is the faith of those, who after countless lives finally have accumulated and possesses the right and ripe conditions for attaining the advantageous state of a Bhikkhu under a Buddha! This is indeed the quickest step towards winning the Bliss of the deathless Nibbna! <....> Source: MN 27: Culahatthipadopama Sutta. Short Simile on Elephant Footprint http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.027.than.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #116908 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:41 pm Subject: Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... epsteinrob Hi Lukas. Nice to hear from you! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > > That is a good point. It seems to fall into the kind of individualism that Mahayana has used as a critique of Theravada in general. Of course, Theravada has metta, sympathetic joy and the other immeasurables, which stand up perfectly well with Mahayana's emphasis on compassion, but it depends on how the immeasurables are seen and what their nature is seen as. > > L: Theras exposed Dhamma in a particular way. They knew the Mahayana minds. They resigned to teach more on compassion due to they know that concepts of compassion can be dangerous to some people, I think. I think this is an interesting idea. Is there a basis for this idea in some texts, or is this an impression that you have developed personally? I do find that many Theravadin teachers express compassion in a way that is not any less than Mahayana teachers, so I think it depends on the school and the person. But what you say is interesting. What is dangerous about the idea of compassion that is more dangerous that other ideas about the path? > > If metta is only seen as an arising dhamma for the person experiencing it and isn't seen as being a bridge between "streams of cittas," ie, one individual and another, then it is not a real sense of caring about the other person. Without caring about the other person as a person, it is difficult to see how lovingkindness or sympathetic joy are really true responses. There is no "heart" left to respond in a true way, and no "other person" to really be loving or sympathetic too. So what's the point? > > L: This is the highest metta,if it's not taken for yours, just conditioned element. I think there is some merit to the idea that the highest metta is to see it from an enlightened view. I am not sure about just seeing it as a conditioned element - I have a small problem with that because I don't see how metta is generated if one does not have that feeling towards a person. If it is just seen as an impersonal element towards a concept or perhaps not towards anything, then I don't think it would continue to exist as metta. Why feel lovingkindness towards nothing? Why feel it towards an identified conceptual construct? To me it does not make sense, but perhaps you can explain it. On the other hand, if one sees that the person for whom one has compassion is only a stream of experiences, among which are love, suffering and other human moments, then I think it is still possible to experience true metta. If one does not have self-view in the way, I agree that would allow the metta to arise more freely and be more wholesome. So I think there is an idea of this that I share. I just have a problem with the totally technical view of it just being a conditioned experience towards a nonexistent conceptual being. > > I think the view that includes both the microscopic understanding of conditional reality and the truth of our conventional life while it lasts and how we affect each other, is the most balanced path to tread. > > > > Again, there is universal acceptance of the importance of the good friend, the spiritual companion with whom one shares the Dhamma. And there is universal acceptance of the importance of the Sangha. Those are conventional relationships, not single dhammas, and if we see them as "unreal" I think that is done at the peril of our understanding of the path. > > L: If you're saying on the paying respect to triple Gem: Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. This is a praise to the qualities of this tree. I'm not sure if the appreciation of the triple gem as an abstraction captures the role of the Sangha and the spiritual friend. It is more like an ongoing relationship, and there is something very human about taking strength and direction from like-minded companions. I think that the conventional level of these relationships is important and may not be totally accounted for by the paramatha view of such things. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #116909 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:52 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and PT) - > > In a message dated 8/19/2011 11:28:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Knives and forks are experienced as rupas; feelings as namas; they are > both objects of experience. > ============================= > Robert, I'm possibly not quite in line with you on the first part of > this statement: > Knives and forks are SAID to be seen and touched, but, in fact, they > are constructed by sankharic operations and cognized via the mind door. What > are more directly experienced are a good number of sight and touch - and > maybe sound - sensations that are interrelated, and from these the mind then > constructs percepts and concepts of knives and forks. The sights and > bodily sensations and sounds are physical qualities more or less directly > experienced. (They are, of course, also conceptually reified and mentally > individuated, i.e. separated off from the flow of experience but that is another > issue.) It is these qualities, these rupas, which are seen, felt, and heard, > and not, as we colloquially say, the knives and forks. > Note: I say the foregoing not on the basis of repeating what I have > heard, but on the basis of introspection. > > With metta, > Howard > > P. S. Perhaps we actually see this matter in the same way. Perhaps when you > say that knives and forks are experienced as rupas, what you mean is that > it is actually rupas that are experienced. In that case, there was no need > for me to have written this. ;-) Sometimes the terms of such an investigation gets so complicated and multiply contextualized that I am not sure what my original point of view was, and this may be one of those times. If I look at my experience, I think that both things are going on at the 'same' time [in a manner of speaking.] The constructed view of knives and forks are experienced by the mind, and the experience of rupas that feed this conceptual understanding of the object continue to rush in and be processed. So there is a whole within which rupas, namas and constructed representations inform each other and create a sense of what exists experientially. Certainly the constructed representation of knives and forks is a part of experience and informs consciousness, just as the momentary experiences of nama and rupa inform consciousness of the elements of experience. So is one more real than the other? Or are they part of a human experience that both perceives and conceives the nature of that which it perceives. If it possible to be aware that experience is both direct and reconstructed, I think one has a good grasp on the way we operate and one can navigate with some degree of developing awareness. But the truth also includes the constructed understanding that we do eat food, that our bodies process the food, and that we cut the food with knives and forks. Even though we get this understanding by a combination of apprehending rupas and namas, stitching them together mentally and forming conclusions, that does not mean that the conclusions that are reached are not real and do not represent activities that actually take place. In the vein, I think what while understanding that which is directly experienceable is of great value, understanding that which takes place but which is constructed in order to experience it is also of great importance, and not to necessarily see the latter as unimportant or unreal, but to understand both what it is and how it is apprehended. Just because we can only see galaxies as two-dimensional pictures of colors on a spectograph, doesn't mean that is what they are. Hope that makes a little bit of sense. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #116910 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:14 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) ptaus1 Hi RobE, > > pt: First, we have to keep in mind what's the purpose of Dhamma, and abhidhamma for that matter? Imo, it is to describe the truth, which when understood leads to the end of samsara. > > RE: That is one interpretation of the path. pt: Are you saying that path culminates in something other than parinibbana, i.e. the end of samsara/round of rebirths? > RE: My concern is that the intellectual involvement with "understanding the description of the truth," while important and valuable in order to have clarity about the ultimate units of experience, can actually block or supplant the path as something that is "lived." pt: Sorry, not very good with mystical lingo anymore. Imo, in practical terms, using abhidhamma lingo, citta with panna either takes a dhamma as object, or it doesn't. If it does, that's a path moment. If it doesn't, it's not. Could still be kusala citta, but not a path moment. Whatever terminology we may then use post-facto to describe that momentary experience, well, that doesn't change what happened, or didn't happen. > RE: I don't think the idea that conventional reality is unreal and that the unseen view of momentary dhammas is real is necessarily a healthy perspective. pt: "conventional reality is unreal and that the unseen view of momentary dhammas is real" - that's a strawman of yours. > RE: When the mundane path is applied to everyday life as it is known and lived, and at the same time contemplation is given to the units of experience and how they arise from moment to moment, this gives a healthy balance and a healthy path. But dismissing everyday experience in favor of 'right concepts' does not seem healthy to me. pt: Strawman. > > pt: Second, how is that truth described? Imo, by pointing out dhammas and their characteristics - anatta, etc. > > > > So, i guess my point is that samsara will not stop no matter how well you use your knives and forks. Neither will samsara stop if you stop using your knives and forks completely. Neither will it stop if you try to see the anatta nature of knives and forks. Etc. Samsara will only stop once anatta nature of feeling and other khandas is seen. Feeling and other khandas are dhammas. > RE: I don't agree with this absolute distinction, which is quite polarized between everyday experiences and dhammas, pt: Strawman. > RE: nor the distinction between knives and forks - everyday activities - and feelings. pt: Strawman. > RE: Knives and forks are experienced as rupas; feelings as namas; they are both objects of experience. pt: If using abhidhamma lingo, not sure that'd be quite right. I think according to ACMA, cognition process would go like this: first, visual object as a rupa is experienced by citta as object during sense-door process of cittas. At this point, what's experienced is I think basically just light so to speak, so no knives and forks yet in experiential terms. Panna may or may not be present during this proces. Then come the mind-door processes that experience the nimitta of that rupa as dhamma (see the recent thread between Sarah and Phil for more details). Again panna may or may not be present here. Still no knives and forks experientially speaking. Then come many mind-door processes that take nimittas of concepts as object, and this is where one eventually recognises "that's a fork". Panna I think usually isn't present during these processes, but it can be - e.g. during kusala moments which are not path moments (metta, jhana, etc), or when the concepts are those of a khanda that just fell away (that'd be pariyatti I think). > RE: I agree that the attachment that arises, or feelings that arise, can be looked into and seen as what they are. I agree that one can experience physical experience as rupas. There can be insight on the mundane level into what is arising during everyday life. pt: Again, not sure what lingo you're using. Citta with panna taking dhamma as object is "mundane level" insight I think , only with nibbana as object is it supramundane. So, if it's not dhamma as objects, it's not mundane level insight, though still can be kusala of course, as well as pariyatti, I think. > RE: But to intellectually map a degree of microscopic namas and rupas that are not really experienced just provides an intellectual overlay. pt: Strawman. > RE: I think it's better to be aware of the namarupa nature of what arises without worrying about whether it is conventional or paramatha and see the characteristics, the attachments, the feelings that attend it, rather than intellectualize it. pt: You are a master strawman maker. > > pt: So i guess another point that has to be made is that there's nothing wrong with concepts. They are very useful in sustaining life. But sustaining life is not the same as ending samsara. > > RE: I don't think that's really the question. It is whether what you are calling concepts can be objects of awareness. The philosophy that is often subscribed to on dsg says 'no,' but that is a kind of intellectualism as well. pt: Master of masters in fact. > RE: To assert that what you experience as objects and beings is 'just concepts' when you don't see them as such, is to supply another intellectual overlay onto what is actually experienced. pt: Other than being a strawman, it's strange in terms of logic - if we designate an "experience of a being or object" as an "experience of a concept", then that's what we can say you're experiencing, regardless of whether yo think you are or not, on top of that experience. Or am I missing something? Anyway, then below it seems you are having a discussion with your dsg alter-ego, so it seems pointless to intrude on the dialogue other than to indicate portions which might be discussed later: > RE: I believe that takes you further away from actually experiencing the realities of the moment, rather than bringing you closer. pt: ? > RE: The concepts of dhammas in one's mind are less real than the conglomerated realities of bodies and beings that you call concepts. pt: ? > RE: When one is naturally involved with experiences and sees *them,* not the concept of them as dhammas, as the actual dhammas that are arising now, then one begins to experience what the real dhammas are like. pt: ? Seeing the current world as concepts and the intellectual world of descriptions of dhammas the real world reverses what are actually realities for you and what are currently actually concepts for you. The real taste, smell and feel of dhammas is not in the description. pt: ? > RE: So it comes down to what is the role of pariyatti? I think it's introductory, to understand what the nature of the description is, pt: I think pariyatti goes a lot deeper. It's far from being just theoretical/intellectual knowledge alike to memorising a shopping list for example. In mystical lingo, I guess pariyatti would be the next best thing to experiencing dhammas directly. In abhdihamma lingo, I think pariyatti would be mind-door processes that take concepts of dhammas as objects. So this would be arising I think just as the concepts of "knives and forks" are being created in the mind-door processes that closely follow the mind-door processes that have nimitta of dhamma as object. In mystical lingo that's be seeing the actual "thinking" rather than seeing "knives and forks", I guess. I'm note very good anymore with that lingo. > RE: but then one has to let that go and experience the real feeling and sight and smell of what exists, not keep thinking one's way through experience. pt: Assuming one could actually choose to do either, and moreover do so with a kusala citta... > > pt: Further, there's no antagonism between concepts and dhammas. They are both essential part of the process of cognition. Hence why the only way for us to actually learn Dhamma is thanks to concepts. But when it comes to ending samsara, it will only happen when dhammas are understood. In practice, or insight in other words. > > RE: What will cause insight to come? What kind of practice? pt: I believe you discussed this with Jon many times. Hearing, considering, etc. Imo, in abhidhamma lingo, if citta is kusala, and sati and panna arise together with it (regardless of whether the object is a concept or a dhamma), that's practice/development/bhavana/meditation. But this is a post-facto statement. While it's happening, nothing I can do or not do. In fact, the whole premise of practice is misleading, because it takes away from anatta. Recoginsing anatta nature of the khanda that's being experienced is in fact "the practice". > RE: I think that the practice that causes awareness and understanding to develop is more experience-oriented and less intellectual. The intellect should be applied to experience in order feel, taste and smell the reality that is spoken of. pt: Back to strawmen eh? > RE: And it should be done as a practice in my view, not as a happenstance that is waited for passively. pt: For some reason my fingers typed "Strawoman", so I'll call it that from now on for the sake of gender equality. > > pt: So, as an example, that would mean that anatta nature of thinking (dhamma) about knives and forks is understood amidst the actual thinking about knives and forks. Or that concentration (dhamma) on a knife or a fork is anatta. Or that perception (dhamma) of a knife or a fork is anatta. Etc. > RE: Such realization would indeed be valuable. And pariyatti takes that part of the way. But the immersion in life and practice with the Dhamma as guide is what gives real flesh to this endeavor and causes real experiences to come to light. pt: As mentioned, not good with mystical lingo anymore. "immersion in life, flesh, endevour". I have no idea what all that means. > > pt: However, if we are just stuck thinking about whether knives and forks are exist or not, is this not just philosophying on a conceptual level (so no actual insight, towards which conceptual understanding of Dhamma should stear us)? Furthermore, is this not attanuditthi?! In other words, it's not just that we are missing the point of Dhamma, but we are actually engaging in wrong view?! > > RE: The question is whether that is not already taking place, whether the assertion that dhammas alone are real and that concepts cannot be the object of awareness is inherently denying the existence of knives and forks. pt: Strawoman, see above. > RE: It is my view that Right View is not to deny physical or conventional existence, but to see that it has both a conventional and expanded aspect that can be understood, and that both are part of its actuality, to be further understood and detached from. pt: Taking your words on their best merit, I'd agree, though I can't be sure what you mean by "both a conventional and expanded aspect that can be understood, and that both are part of its actuality,". I'm hoping what you're saying is the same as the cognition process I outlined above according to ACMA. Best wishes pt #116911 From: "philip" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:17 pm Subject: Panna with concept as object philofillet Hi all, I heard this: Jon: "So can we say there is nothing wrong with conceptualizing ad long as it's kusala?" Acharn Sujin: "As long as there is understanding it's kusala." Just to confirm, but panna can have concept as object, right? Is there any disputing that? Is it only a preliminary level tgat can have concept as object, but not bhavanamaya(?) panna? Thanks Metta, Phil #116912 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Ph: was it finally agreed that according to the Dhamma, kusala abstention (virati? I forget the Pali) only occurs with vipasanna nana? pt: No, at least as I understood Sarah, virati can arise with cittas that have a concept as object. Though I think KenH will still examine that issue more closely with Sarah. These moments with concepts would be kusala, but not satipatthana. See these two posts in the thread by Sarah for more details: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/116839 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/116856 Best wishes pt #116913 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:46 pm Subject: Re: Panna with concept as object szmicio Hi Phil, > Jon: "So can we say there is nothing wrong with conceptualizing ad long as it's kusala?" > > Acharn Sujin: "As long as there is understanding it's kusala." > > Just to confirm, but panna can have concept as object, right? Is there any disputing that? Is it only a preliminary level tgat can have concept as object, but not bhavanamaya(?) panna? L: Panna cannot understand concept, it has not a distinct characteristic. But panna can understand the citta that thinks about concept. Check satipatthana, there are four groups that sati can be aware of, and the same with panna. There can be awarness of body, that is awarness of each 28 ruupas, awarness of feeling, awarness of cittas, and awarness of each dhamma, except of concept. In moment of satipatthana, there is always bhavana-maya panna, that knows how to be aware in a right way, it knows distinct characteristic of each dhamma, when sati is not forgetful about them. satisampajana is aware of citta that has concepts as object, then i think this is the fourth satipatthana, dhammanupassana. Best wishes Lukas #116914 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:46 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Robert E (116786) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > Thanks, Jon. I would not think you were making it up, however, it of course clarifies things to see where a view actually appears, as opposed to being some sort of conglomerate of an interpretation of the entire Tipitaka. When one says that this is "orthodox" and that it is a result of the "entire Tipitaka including commentaries..." I think that in a sense obscures the actuality of where this view comes from, and likewise obscures how universal it is, or whether it is indeed the logical conclusion of the entirety of the Tipitaka, which it is not. =============== J: It is not a matter of whether an interpretation is a 'logical conclusion', but whether it is fully consistent with both the suttas and the Abhidhamma. =============== > [RE:] Buddha, as I suspected, never gave any pronouncement of the eight-fold path existing as a momentary occurrence of a short series of cittas and accompanying cetasikas, and never implied that this was the case. The idea that the path consists of a culmination of brief experienced moments is a grand departure, in my opinion, not an interpretation of, the way in which Buddha defined the Noble Eight-fold Path. This view only appears in commentary and/or sub-commentary, and cannot be derived from any other source in the Tipitaka, in my understanding, limited though it may be. It is not in sutta, it is not in Visudhimagga, and I am fairly certain - though not totally certain by any means - that it does not appear in the body of the Abhidhamma itself, which would lead it to be a very restricted interpretation of the Tipitaka, and not "orthodox" in the sense of being ubiquitous within the scriptures or universally understood and accepted by the tradition of serious adherents and practitioners of Buddhism, which is the only meaningful use of the word "orthodox." =============== J: As far as I know, the interpretation we are discussing was in fact the generally accepted and understood interpretation of the teachings within the Theravada community from the time of the Buddha until some time after the Abhidhammatta Sangaha. As regards references in the Tipitaka, I recently came across the following notes (although I don't have a copy of the Vibhanga with me to check): ********************************** SUMMARY FROM VIBHANGA Ch 4 Analysis Of Truth Summary from par. 206 - Right view is wisdom, understanding - right thought is mentation, thinking - right speech, action and livelihood are avoiding etc. the 4 verbal wrong actions, 3 wrong bodily actions and wrong livelihood respectively - right effort is the arousing of mental energy - right mindfulness is mindfulness - right concentration is stability of consciousness, steadfastness Summary from par. 217-218 The truth of the path-- - has immeasurable object - has path as its cause - has external object - is mental concomitants - accompanies consciousness - tends to release ********************************** As regards references in the Visuddhimagga, there is the following Ch. XVI in the section dealing with the NEP as the 4th Noble Truth: ********************************** "75. In the description of the way leading to the cessation of suffering eight things are given. Though they have, of course, already been explained as to meaning in the Description of the Aggregates [J: The section dealing with the Aggregates gives a description of each of the metnal factors individually], still we shall deal with them here in order to remain aware of the difference between them when they occur in a single moment on the occasion of the path. [J: Then follows a description of each of the 8 path factors, starting with right view:] "76. Briefly, when a meditator is progressing towards the penetration of the four truths, his eye of understanding with nibbana as its object eliminates the inherent tendency to ignorance, and that is right view. It has right seeing as its characteristic. Its function is to reveal elements. It is manifested as the abolition of the darkness of ignorance. ... [J: Jumping now to factors 6 to 8 (right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration):] "81. When he is established on that plane of virtue called right speech, right action, and right livelihood, his energy, which is in conformity and associated with that right view, cuts off idleness, and that is called right effort. It has the characteristic of exerting. Its function is the non-arousing of unprofitable things, and so on. It is manifested as the abandoning of wrong effort." "82. When he exerts himself thus, the non-forgetfulness in his mind, which is associated with that right view, shakes off wrong mindfulness, and that is called right mindfulness. It has the characteristic of establishing. Its function is not to forget. It is manifested as the abandoning of wrong mindfulness. "83. When his mind is thus guarded by supreme mindfulness, the unification of mind, which is associated with that right view, abolishes wrong concentration, and that is called right concentration. It has the characteristic of non-distraction. Its function is to concentrate. It is manifested as the abandoning of wrong concentration." ********************************** The above seems to be a description of mental factors. =============== > [RE:] That is why it think it is very useful to identify the actual sources of our views. Rather than saying that such a view is orthodox, which somewhat optimistically universalizes it beyond its actual scope for the sake of those who adopt such a view, it would be much more precise and correct to say that it is a "commentarial" view, as many of such view are, and that those who hold such a view are "commentary-based" in their views, and that those who hold such a view could very well be called the "Commentarialist" wing of the Theravadin tradition. =============== J: To my understanding, the commentaries are an intrinsic part of the Theravadin tradition, so much so that in fact it is the authors of the commentaries who are the 'Theras' from which the tradition takes its name. Jon #116915 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:00 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Robert E (116788) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > [RE:] I agree that the mundane jhanas without corresponding insight development would only suppress defilements and lead to continued rebirth. ... > > Buddha's use of jhana as a pathway to enlightenment does not resemble its use by those who did not understanding satipatthana. On this, I think we can all agree. =============== J: Not so fast :-)). The pathway to enlightenment is insight/vipassana. For those who have developed jhana, that pathway may include insight with jhana consciousness as object. But jhana consciousness (a very high degree of kusala absorption on the subject of contemplation) is the same for all regardless of the extent if any to which insight/vipassana may also have been developed. When insight is developed and is able to take the jhana consciousness as object, that is not a 'use' of jhana any more than there is a 'use' of, say, sound or hearing consciousness when that dhamma is object of insight. =============== [RE:] However, I think it is very clear that Buddha meant jhana to be employed in conjunction with satipatthana, and did not promote the use of one part of the path without the other, but both developed together to form the full path. =============== J: There are numerous instances in the suttas of persons attaining enlightenment with no reference to the prior attainment of jhana and in circumstances where it would seem that prior jhana played no role. =============== > [RE:] Can dry insight develop the full path, with jhana factors occurring as part of the fulfillment of the path at the end of high insight attainment? I am not sure, but I am fairly certain that such a pathway was not set out by the Buddha, taking into account those notable exceptions. Any contrary quotes that are not from commentary? =============== J: As just mentioned, a requirement for prior attainment of jhana would not be consistent with the descriptions of attainment of enlightenment found in many suttas. But in any event, since you acknowledge there are exceptions, I'm not sure in what sense it can be said that jhana is part of the path. We all agree, I think, that there can at least be the beginning of the development of insight without prior jhana, so unless there is a point at which that development can no longer continue, the question of having to attain jhana does not arise. Jon #116916 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... jonoabb Hi Robert E (and Howard) (116790) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Howard. > ... > I certainly think that every intentional action is experienced as an arising dhamma by an apprehending citta, but I don't think that right action or right effort are merely such experiences, but that actions exist in their own right and that the action, not just the experience of the action, is part of the path. I don't believe that action per se has any significance in the commentarial view. It is difficult to split such a distinction between the paramatha terminology the way it is used, and the way that I understand it. The idea of absolute realities has implications of single isolated bounded experiential that have clear static existences for brief moments of existence and are thoroughly passive in nature that I don't accept as a correct understanding of action and experience. My understanding of the way in which paramatha dhammas is used explicitly denies the existence of volitional actions. That is the distinction I am trying to make, and it's a difficult one to discuss clearly. =============== J: To my understanding, the teaching on paramattha dhammas explains the truth and actuality of the present moment, and how a direct understanding of that may lead to release from samsara. It does not accord specific status to anything that is not capable of being directly experienced (this would include actions occurring over time and presumed objects), as it is only that which can be directly experienced that can be the field for the development of insight. Jon #116917 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:53 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 8/21/2011 2:52:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes, quoting Howard W: > P. S. Perhaps we actually see this matter in the same way. Perhaps when you > say that knives and forks are experienced as rupas, what you mean is that > it is actually rupas that are experienced. In that case, there was no need > for me to have written this. ;-) Sometimes the terms of such an investigation gets so complicated and multiply contextualized that I am not sure what my original point of view was, and this may be one of those times. -------------------------------------------- HCW: ;-) ------------------------------------------- If I look at my experience, I think that both things are going on at the 'same' time [in a manner of speaking.] The constructed view of knives and forks are experienced by the mind, -------------------------------------------- HCW: Certainly. --------------------------------------------- and the experience of rupas that feed this conceptual understanding of the object continue to rush in and be processed. So there is a whole within which rupas, namas and constructed representations inform each other and create a sense of what exists experientially. --------------------------------------------- HCW: The rupas are close-to-directly observed in the sense that only a little mental construction is involved in their being known. Much more mental construction for macro-concepts is needed, but that, as we agree, I believe, doesn't make the macro-concepts baseless. The subsumed rupas are not isolated but interrelated. Where genuine error enters in with regard to the macro-concepts, I believe, is in our imposing a sense of (and even belief in) the concepts not referring to mere relationally integrated collections but to individual realities with own being (or essence). Actually, the same sort of reification is involved with rupas, I believe, but the error there is less in that rupas are simpler, though as pointed out by the Buddha and the commentaries, rupas are conditioned and undergo change, and (I add): What is contingent and also changes lacks essence and is not a separate reality. --------------------------------------------- Certainly the constructed representation of knives and forks is a part of experience and informs consciousness, just as the momentary experiences of nama and rupa inform consciousness of the elements of experience. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: No question. These thought-objects are objects of consciousness, hence elements of experience. ---------------------------------------------- So is one more real than the other? Or are they part of a human experience that both perceives and conceives the nature of that which it perceives. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: IMO, the so-called paramattha dhammas are closer to real. Warmth, for example, is more directly perceived than "a warm hand" in that it is a quality that is felt without thought processing except to the extent that it is viewed as an unchanging, momentary, and separate "thing" with own being and essence. --------------------------------------------- If it possible to be aware that experience is both direct and reconstructed, I think one has a good grasp on the way we operate and one can navigate with some degree of developing awareness. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: I believe that sankharic construction is always in effect, at all levels, but varying in extent. ------------------------------------------------- But the truth also includes the constructed understanding that we do eat food, that our bodies process the food, and that we cut the food with knives and forks. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Of course this is true. It is however, a shorthand truth, and one with respect to which care in understanding must be taken, for it is at this level that deluded notions of individuality, separateness, essence, permanence, and self most easily enter in and are most serious. --------------------------------------------------- Even though we get this understanding by a combination of apprehending rupas and namas, stitching them together mentally and forming conclusions, that does not mean that the conclusions that are reached are not real and do not represent activities that actually take place. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Absolutely, but we need to keep in mind that term 'shorthand'. -------------------------------------------------- In the vein, I think what while understanding that which is directly experienceable is of great value, understanding that which takes place but which is constructed in order to experience it is also of great importance, and not to necessarily see the latter as unimportant or unreal, but to understand both what it is and how it is apprehended. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Indeed. But care must be taken in seeing the pervasive presence of mental construction and in avoiding the imputing of false atta-characteristics. -------------------------------------------------------- Just because we can only see galaxies as two-dimensional pictures of colors on a spectograph, doesn't mean that is what they are. Hope that makes a little bit of sense. ------------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Sure it does. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Best, Robert E. =================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116918 From: "philip" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:59 pm Subject: Re: Panna with concept as object philofillet Hi Lukas and all > > Just to confirm, but panna can have concept as object, right? Is there any disputing that? Is it only a preliminary level tgat can have concept as object, but not bhavanamaya(?) panna? > > L: Panna cannot understand concept, it has not a distinct characteristic. But panna can understand the citta that thinks about concept. Check satipatthana, there are four groups that sati can be aware of, and the same with panna. Ph: Wow, I didn't know this, I have a lot to learn. Please tell me again about the first level of panna, is it suttamayapanna, what is it's object, only the characteristics of dhammas? surely it must be less powerful(?) than that. For example, isn't there panna of a weak degree that understands what a sutta or Abhudhamma says, for exampke, rhe difference"sati" and "panna", as concepts? Pariyatti must include learning about dhammas as concepts (since they can only be content of thinking to begin with at first, right?) No panna then? Thanks Lukas, this is a difficult topic for me. Metta, Phil thhttp://dhammatalks.org/Archive/guided_meditations/guided_meditations.htmlat is awarness of each 28 ruupas, awarness of feeling, awarness of cittas, and awarness of each dhamma, except of concept. In moment of satipatthana, there is always bhavana-maya panna, that knows how to be aware in a right way, it knows distinct characteristic of each dhamma, when sati is not forgetful about them. > > satisampajana is aware of citta that has concepts as object, then i think this is the fourth satipatthana, dhammanupassana. > > Best wishes > Lukas > #116919 From: "philip" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! philofillet Hi pt, thanks very much for the links. Here's hoping lots of virya will arise to support a diligent effort to stick to trying to figure out this topic. You have been providing a good model for me in your various discussions, thanks. Metta, phil p.s Is your name pronounced "putuu" or "putee?" #116920 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:27 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) truth_aerator Dear Jon, all, >J:There are numerous instances in the suttas of persons attaining >enlightenment with no reference to the prior attainment of jhana and >in circumstances where it would seem that prior jhana played no role. >=================================================================== Suttas are limited in what the can describe. If everything a person did in one life would be written, it would be a huge book. Nothing to say about multiple lifetimes! The suttas can avoid mentioning obvious things, such as that that monk had a mother and a father, that that monk needed to regularly go to the washroom, etc etc. Omission does NOT mean lack of something happening. Now if there was a consistently used unambiguous phrase that mundane Jhanas are not required for anyone, then we could accept this thesis. With best wishes, Alex #116921 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:25 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > > > pt: First, we have to keep in mind what's the purpose of Dhamma, and abhidhamma for that matter? Imo, it is to describe the truth, which when understood leads to the end of samsara. > > > > RE: That is one interpretation of the path. > > pt: Are you saying that path culminates in something other than parinibbana, i.e. the end of samsara/round of rebirths? No, I'm not referring to the second part of your sentence, but to the first - that describing the truth is the purpose of the Dhamma, and that understanding that description leads to the end of samsara. I don't think that understanding the description of the truth leads to the end of samsara, which is the pariyatti-oriented view. I think that understanding the description of the truth leads to a correct understanding of correct practice, and that only correct practice leads to the ending of samsara. I think you could understand the truth as described by the Dhamma for many many lifetimes, better and better and in more detail, without creating the conditions that would lead to the ending of samsara. So the question is about what practice leads to the ending of samsara, not whether the end of the path is parinibbana, which we would all agree. There are many here who believe that the study of the Dhamma on that level of "understanding the description" will in and of itself eventually unfold into the transformation of consciousness and the direct realization of the nature of self and reality, ie, satipatthana. There are also those who believe that having understood the description of reality and the path to some degree, that one then continues a two or three-fold practice: continuing to understand the nature of reality and the description of the path as given in the Dhamma, the continuing practice in everyday life to be aware of what is actually happening in the moment and to let go or become more detached from those things which arise as we become aware of them, and to practice the development of awareness and letting go through formal meditative practice as described by the Buddha. It is my view that the application of the Dhamma to everyday life, to understanding the Buddha's teaching, and to practicing towards the skillful development of awareness and letting go, is the threefold action that causes the path to move towards the ending of samsara. I understand the arguments that any formal purposeful development of awareness and release of clinging and craving only assert and strengthen the false idea of control and self-view, but I don't agree with that argument and I think it is incorrect. In my view of the path, it is possible and it is necessary to study the theory of the Dhamma through sutta and perhaps through Abdhidhamma and commentary for those who find the greatest knowledge of the Dhamma in that way, and also to practice and development the enlightenment factors through both everyday life and meditation without increasing akusala or self-view. When akusala and self-view arise, as they will in any case, that is just more grist for the mill to become aware and release whatever attachment is realized. I also don't believe that the culmination of the path is a precise understanding of the specifics of dhammas, but rather a transformational consciousness that realizes the vanity of whatever arises and is able to let go of attachment to whatever arises. In my understanding this is not just a matter of an individual citta letting go of its object of scrutiny, but a full-personality letting go and upliftment. Those who do not believe however that the body and personality are real and subject to various states will not agree with this sense of an actual person being lifted up to another state of being. That actual person is made up of many moments of consciousness, physical action and internal states arising, but the pattern of what arises and how these are regarded by consciousness is transformed and changed. That puts practice in a somewhat different, non-intellectual light. > > RE: My concern is that the intellectual involvement with "understanding the description of the truth," while important and valuable in order to have clarity about the ultimate units of experience, can actually block or supplant the path as something that is "lived." > > pt: Sorry, not very good with mystical lingo anymore. Imo, in practical terms, using abhidhamma lingo, citta with panna either takes a dhamma as object, or it doesn't. If it does, that's a path moment. If it doesn't, it's not. Could still be kusala citta, but not a path moment. Whatever terminology we may then use post-facto to describe that momentary experience, well, that doesn't change what happened, or didn't happen. If you believe that the path and enlightenment is a matter of an individual citta at a moment taking a specific object for that moment, then what you say makes sense. I don't really believe that the path comes down to one specific kind of technical moment of taking a special object as object of citta. I think it's a more consistent pattern of a consciousness that has been changed in many many moments and is transformed from its former way of taking objects, and that even this doesn't fully describe the complete profile of the different levels of experience that have changed. I guess you could describe that as cittas, cetasikas and rupas of various kinds in various patterns and that would be agreeable to me, but I Don't think that technical language in the way it is described in commentaries necessarily fully describes what takes place and how many billions of moments are involved or how the pattern of those arising and being taken as objects changes in such a case. Not just this or that single individual citta, or ten or twenty that makes the transformation take place, but a continual stream of cittas that have been evolving in that direction and reach a certain point of understanding. I don't think that each single individual citta contains the universe. I just don't agree with that way of looking at things. > > RE: I don't think the idea that conventional reality is unreal and that the unseen view of momentary dhammas is real is necessarily a healthy perspective. > > pt: "conventional reality is unreal and that the unseen view of momentary dhammas is real" - that's a strawman of yours. It's not exactly a strawman, since it describes what we actually know and see. If you are saying that conventional reality is *not* unreal, then there are many who would not agree with that. Many say that conventional reality is merely conceptual and does not occur as we experience it. As for the unseen view of dhammas, it's true isn't it? If you haven't experienced it directly or at least through a convincing enough nimitta that you know that you are tracking the true reality of momentary dhammas, then it is still a theory, no matter how fully you may think it is correct. So it is believed in, but the dhammas are still unseen. If that is the case, it's a matter of being convinced logically and having faith in that teaching, but it is still not known directly. We do know directly, for what it's worth, the experience of drinking a glass of water. We can say it's conceptual and that it's not the true reality we experience, but we don't actually know that. Again, it's a matter of faith and belief that this is the case, and that is a conceptual understanding. So where's the straw man? I'm pointing out something that is true, unless you can demonstrate that I am wrong in what I am saying. I am open to that. > > RE: When the mundane path is applied to everyday life as it is known and lived, and at the same time contemplation is given to the units of experience and how they arise from moment to moment, this gives a healthy balance and a healthy path. But dismissing everyday experience in favor of 'right concepts' does not seem healthy to me. > > pt: Strawman. Well you say that summarily, but I don't mean it as a strawman. I think it's actually what is taking place. I have been told many times that having the right conceptual understanding of realities, eg, pariyatti, is the prerequisite and also the means by which direct understanding develops, but that it will not develop to that point possibly for many lifetimes. So one is trusting and believing that this is the right path, but meanwhile the experiences of life are seen as concepts instead of being taken as actual existing objects of experience. That is the truth. So it's not a strawman to me. If you think my view is incorrect, that is fine with me. Discuss it on the merits, but dismissing it as a kind of "ruse," eg, strawman, does not deal with it very well. It's not meant that way. > > > pt: Second, how is that truth described? Imo, by pointing out dhammas and their characteristics - anatta, etc. > > > > > > So, i guess my point is that samsara will not stop no matter how well you use your knives and forks. Neither will samsara stop if you stop using your knives and forks completely. Neither will it stop if you try to see the anatta nature of knives and forks. Etc. Samsara will only stop once anatta nature of feeling and other khandas is seen. Feeling and other khandas are dhammas. > > > RE: I don't agree with this absolute distinction, which is quite polarized between everyday experiences and dhammas, > > pt: Strawman. > > > RE: nor the distinction between knives and forks - everyday activities - and feelings. > > pt: Strawman. These "strawman" references may be satisfying for you, but they're not going to lead to greater understanding, at least on my part. I mean what I say as serious statements. I'm sorry you see them as setups or false distinctions, because I really mean them as statements of what I see and understand in the philosophy under discussion. If you want to explain how they are incorrect distinctions, feel free; otherwise, I get it - you think they are strawmen but I don't agree. > > RE: Knives and forks are experienced as rupas; feelings as namas; they are both objects of experience. > > pt: If using abhidhamma lingo, not sure that'd be quite right. I think according to ACMA, cognition process would go like this: first, visual object as a rupa is experienced by citta as object during sense-door process of cittas. At this point, what's experienced is I think basically just light so to speak, so no knives and forks yet in experiential terms. Panna may or may not be present during this proces. > > Then come the mind-door processes that experience the nimitta of that rupa as dhamma (see the recent thread between Sarah and Phil for more details). Again panna may or may not be present here. Still no knives and forks experientially speaking. Then come many mind-door processes that take nimittas of concepts as object, and this is where one eventually recognises "that's a fork". Panna I think usually isn't present during these processes, but it can be - e.g. during kusala moments which are not path moments (metta, jhana, etc), or when the concepts are those of a khanda that just fell away (that'd be pariyatti I think). That is a good description of the technical way in which these experiences are said to arise. And it's fine if they do arise that way. The result is a combination of specific momentary experiences taking place and the apprehension of conceptual understandings of what they constitute. The mind sees the patterns of light-hardness-mental process, etc. and references them to come to the conclusion that "this was a fork moving" or whatever it may be. The full experience, including the conceptual stitching together of those moments, is real, and actually takes place. > > RE: I agree that the attachment that arises, or feelings that arise, can be looked into and seen as what they are. I agree that one can experience physical experience as rupas. There can be insight on the mundane level into what is arising during everyday life. > > pt: Again, not sure what lingo you're using. Citta with panna taking dhamma as object is "mundane level" insight I think , only with nibbana as object is it supramundane. So, if it's not dhamma as objects, it's not mundane level insight, though still can be kusala of course, as well as pariyatti, I think. Well I'm no master of the lingo, so I'm just saying what I think as best I can. Ken O. has recently stated that a conventional object, a concept, can be the object of mundane insight. There is some dispute on this subject, but I'm not technically sharp enough to understand it on that level. This makes sense to me but I can't really argue it out on a technical level. > > RE: But to intellectually map a degree of microscopic namas and rupas that are not really experienced just provides an intellectual overlay. > > pt: Strawman. Yeah, I was guessing that's what you would say. Whenever I describe the single citta nama-rupa universe as "not really experienced" you say it is a strawman. Well, sorry, pt, but it's not actually experienced by anyone around here, so it's not a strawman, it's reality. That doesn't make that philosophy incorrect or untrue, but it doesn't make it correct or true either. So go ahead, keep saying "strawman" as much as you like. It's not a substitute for discussing these statements on the merits. I understand if that doesn't seem worth your time, since you disagree with them, but that's up to you. > > RE: I think it's better to be aware of the namarupa nature of what arises without worrying about whether it is conventional or paramatha and see the characteristics, the attachments, the feelings that attend it, rather than intellectualize it. > > pt: You are a master strawman maker. Well one thing is clear, you are master at saying "strawman," for what it's worth. I don't think it's a strawman, but without a more substantive exchange, it's hard to say much about it one way or the other. Hope you're having fun. > > > pt: So i guess another point that has to be made is that there's nothing wrong with concepts. They are very useful in sustaining life. But sustaining life is not the same as ending samsara. > > > > RE: I don't think that's really the question. It is whether what you are calling concepts can be objects of awareness. The philosophy that is often subscribed to on dsg says 'no,' but that is a kind of intellectualism as well. > > pt: Master of masters in fact. Maybe. Or maybe you just don't like what I'm saying and don't want to think about it. > > RE: To assert that what you experience as objects and beings is 'just concepts' when you don't see them as such, is to supply another intellectual overlay onto what is actually experienced. > > pt: Other than being a strawman, it's strange in terms of logic - if we designate an "experience of a being or object" as an "experience of a concept", then that's what we can say you're experiencing, regardless of whether you think you are or not, on top of that experience. Or am I missing something? I think it's even harder to unwind the above statement than it is to understand my original statement. I was saying that you see a person and of course you apprehend them as such - this is Rob E. who is a master strawman-maker. But according to dhamma theory Rob e. does not exist as a person as such - that is understood to be a concept. So you are at odds with your own natural perception. You see Rob E, but you think that seeing is just a conceptual construction. It takes an act of intellect to overrule your natural perception of Rob E., master strawman-maker, and to say to yourself, "He is just a concept." That is what I mean by an intellectual overlay. I hope that's more clear. And I know: "strawman." Why not? > Anyway, then below it seems you are having a discussion with your dsg alter-ego, so it seems pointless to intrude on the dialogue other than to indicate portions which might be discussed later: Yes, dsg has given me a kind of schizophrenia. I apologize for talking to myself in the middle of my post to you, or whatever. > > RE: I believe that takes you further away from actually experiencing the realities of the moment, rather than bringing you closer. > > pt: ? > > > RE: The concepts of dhammas in one's mind are less real than the conglomerated realities of bodies and beings that you call concepts. > > pt: ? > > > RE: When one is naturally involved with experiences and sees *them,* not the concept of them as dhammas, as the actual dhammas that are arising now, then one begins to experience what the real dhammas are like. > > pt: ? > > Seeing the current world as concepts and the intellectual world of descriptions of dhammas the real world reverses what are actually realities for you and what are currently actually concepts for you. The real taste, smell and feel of dhammas is not in the description. > > pt: ? Yeah, well I really wasn't talking to myself, pt. I was discussing the difference between what is actually experienced and what one "thinks" is being experienced. And "you" was meant to stand in for "one," anyone, even me, master strawman-maker, or you, adherent to dhamma theory, or whoever. All the above was a further extrapolation of what I said earlier and the same explanation can be used, so I'll repeat it, hopefully handling all your question marks at once: "I was saying that you see a person and of course you apprehend them as such - this is Rob E. who is a master strawman-maker. But according to dhamma theory Rob e. does not exist as a person as such - that is understood to be a concept. So you are at odds with your own natural perception. You see Rob E, but you think that seeing is just a conceptual construction. It takes an act of intellect to overrule your natural perception of Rob E., master strawman-maker, and to say to yourself, "He is just a concept." That is what I mean by an intellectual overlay. I hope that's more clear." So I hope that's more clear as to what I am asserting, notwithstanding the fact that you may fervently disagree with it. > > RE: So it comes down to what is the role of pariyatti? I think it's introductory, to understand what the nature of the description is, > > pt: I think pariyatti goes a lot deeper. It's far from being just theoretical/intellectual knowledge alike to memorizing a shopping list for example. Now THAT's a strawman! I never said that the value of pariyatti is memorizing a conceptual shopping list. I simply said that in truth it is an intellectual understanding of realities according to a very sophisticated specific philosophy that breaks realities down into very definite units, and that this very specific breakdown is not in fact actually experienced. It is known about intellectually. Is anything in the above untrue about the basic setup of pariyatti? In any case, it's no shopping list. Welcome to the strawman-making club. I see you have some natural talent in this area as well. > In mystical lingo, I guess pariyatti would be the next best thing to experiencing dhammas directly. In abhdihamma lingo, I think pariyatti would be mind-door processes that take concepts of dhammas as objects. Right, so like I said, it's a conceptual path. And it believes in the importance of "right concept" over what it regards as "wrong experience." That is true - it's not a strawman. > So this would be arising I think just as the concepts of "knives and forks" are being created in the mind-door processes that closely follow the mind-door processes that have nimitta of dhamma as object. In mystical lingo that's be seeing the actual "thinking" rather than seeing "knives and forks", I guess. I'm note very good anymore with that lingo. Calling such descriptions mystical lingo is itself mystical lingo, just another kind. > > RE: but then one has to let that go and experience the real feeling and sight and smell of what exists, not keep thinking one's way through experience. > > pt: Assuming one could actually choose to do either, and moreover do so with a kusala citta... We might have different assumptions about that possibility. > > > pt: Further, there's no antagonism between concepts and dhammas. They are both essential part of the process of cognition. Hence why the only way for us to actually learn Dhamma is thanks to concepts. But when it comes to ending samsara, it will only happen when dhammas are understood. In practice, or insight in other words. > > > > RE: What will cause insight to come? What kind of practice? > > pt: I believe you discussed this with Jon many times. Hearing, considering, etc. Imo, in abhidhamma lingo, if citta is kusala, and sati and panna arise together with it (regardless of whether the object is a concept or a dhamma), that's practice/development/bhavana/meditation. But this is a post-facto statement. While it's happening, nothing I can do or not do. In fact, the whole premise of practice is misleading, because it takes away from anatta. That is a specific dogma of the shared philosophy that you, Jon and others have on dsg. It is not an established truth. > Recognizing anatta nature of the khanda that's being experienced is in fact "the practice". Doesn't sound bad to me. > > RE: I think that the practice that causes awareness and understanding to develop is more experience-oriented and less intellectual. The intellect should be applied to experience in order feel, taste and smell the reality that is spoken of. > > pt: Back to strawmen eh? No it's not a strawman. It's a comparison of study without additional practice as you just advocated above, versus purposeful practice as others here think is correct practice and which has been disputed many times in this group, and which you just dismissed above. You actually assert what I am describing and then call it a strawman two seconds later. Not a strawman, but an actual dividing line. Why do you think that every characterization of dhamma philosophy I make is a strawman? I'd like to see you give the alternative rendering of what is wrong with my statement that would not be a strawman. Show me where I'm wrong according to you, instead of saying strawman over and over again. Assuming that you can take my word for it that I'm not just trying to make stuff up, but giving my actual understanding of what the differences in philosophy are. > > RE: And it should be done as a practice in my view, not as a happenstance that is waited for passively. > > pt: For some reason my fingers typed "Strawoman", so I'll call it that from now on for the sake of gender equality. It doesn't really matter does it? A straw-being by any other name...? But do go on and say 'strawman' as many times as you like. Here, I'll join you - strawbeing, strawbeing, strawbeing - these strawbeings are all gender-neutral and mean as little as the ones that have genders. > > > pt: So, as an example, that would mean that anatta nature of thinking (dhamma) about knives and forks is understood amidst the actual thinking about knives and forks. Or that concentration (dhamma) on a knife or a fork is anatta. Or that perception (dhamma) of a knife or a fork is anatta. Etc. > > > RE: Such realization would indeed be valuable. And pariyatti takes that part of the way. But the immersion in life and practice with the Dhamma as guide is what gives real flesh to this endeavor and causes real experiences to come to light. > > pt: As mentioned, not good with mystical lingo anymore. "immersion in life, flesh, endeavour". I have no idea what all that means. Well I'm sorry that I can't say anything that is not in dhamma theory lingo without you seeing it as incomprehensible mystical lingo. I am saying that 'real life' is the field of the Dhamma. Hope that's more clear. In case it's not, I think the Dhamma should be realized when having a real conversation with your mother or significant other, or the testy guy on the bus, and that is has to do more with the reactions and perceptions of daily life than what we read in the commentaries. If that is incomprehensible mystical jargon, then I am sorry for referencing the "conceptual world of people and objects" that is so weirdly mystical. > > > pt: However, if we are just stuck thinking about whether knives and forks are exist or not, is this not just philosophying on a conceptual level (so no actual insight, towards which conceptual understanding of Dhamma should stear us)? Furthermore, is this not attanuditthi?! In other words, it's not just that we are missing the point of Dhamma, but we are actually engaging in wrong view?! > > > > RE: The question is whether that is not already taking place, whether the assertion that dhammas alone are real and that concepts cannot be the object of awareness is inherently denying the existence of knives and forks. > > pt: Strawoman, see above. I think you're missing the main points of this discussion by doing that. Why not take a look at what I am saying before you jump up and label it as basically being nonsense. You haven't answered any of these assertions that are all saying that dhamma theory is a conceptual approach to reality, and that it thus dismisses what we natively experience in life. That is a real object of discussion, not a strawman, and you are missing that discussion in order to glibly label everything I say. I think it's pretty damn defensive, pt. I am challenging the dhamma philosophy, but I'm not doing it off the cuff, and I think your reaction shows that you are probably not making much contact with what I'm saying. It may be that what I'm saying is ridiculous nonsense and not worth your time, but if you're going to bother to respond to it, you may as well think about what I'm asserting and say something back. > > RE: It is my view that Right View is not to deny physical or conventional existence, but to see that it has both a conventional and expanded aspect that can be understood, and that both are part of its actuality, to be further understood and detached from. > > pt: Taking your words on their best merit, I'd agree, though I can't be sure what you mean by "both a conventional and expanded aspect that can be understood, and that both are part of its actuality,". I'm hoping what you're saying is the same as the cognition process I outlined above according to ACMA. I am including what folks here call "concepts" as part of the path. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #116922 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:39 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 8/21/2011 2:52:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes, quoting Howard W: > > > P. S. Perhaps we actually see this matter in the same way. Perhaps when > you > > say that knives and forks are experienced as rupas, what you mean is > that > > it is actually rupas that are experienced. In that case, there was no > need > > for me to have written this. ;-) > > Sometimes the terms of such an investigation gets so complicated and > multiply contextualized that I am not sure what my original point of view was, > and this may be one of those times. > -------------------------------------------- > HCW: ;-) > ------------------------------------------- > > If I look at my experience, I think that both things are going on at the > 'same' time [in a manner of speaking.] The constructed view of knives and > forks are experienced by the mind, > -------------------------------------------- > HCW: Certainly. > --------------------------------------------- > > and the experience of rupas that feed this conceptual understanding of the > object continue to rush in and be processed. So there is a whole within > which rupas, namas and constructed representations inform each other and > create a sense of what exists experientially. > --------------------------------------------- > HCW: > The rupas are close-to-directly observed in the sense that only a > little mental construction is involved in their being known. Much more mental > construction for macro-concepts is needed, but that, as we agree, I believe, > doesn't make the macro-concepts baseless. I think that is a good understanding and appreciate the clarity of that statement. The subsumed rupas are not > isolated but interrelated. Where genuine error enters in with regard to the > macro-concepts, I believe, is in our imposing a sense of (and even belief in) > the concepts not referring to mere relationally integrated collections but > to individual realities with own being (or essence). That is also good. > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > IMO, the so-called paramattha dhammas are closer to real. Warmth, for > example, is more directly perceived than "a warm hand" in that it is a > quality that is felt without thought processing except to the extent that it is > viewed as an unchanging, momentary, and separate "thing" with own being > and essence. > --------------------------------------------- Yeah, have to be careful of both scylla and charybdis there. > ------------------------------------------------- > > But the truth also includes the constructed understanding that we do eat > food, that our bodies process the food, and that we cut the food with knives > and forks. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Of course this is true. It is however, a shorthand truth, and one with > respect to which care in understanding must be taken, for it is at this > level that deluded notions of individuality, separateness, essence, > permanence, and self most easily enter in and are most serious. > --------------------------------------------------- This is also a good point, and very specific. > Even though we get this understanding by a combination of apprehending > rupas and namas, stitching them together mentally and forming conclusions, that > does not mean that the conclusions that are reached are not real and do > not represent activities that actually take place. > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: Absolutely, but we need to keep in mind that term 'shorthand'. > -------------------------------------------------- I think that's a good admonition. I think that as awareness of the various reconstructional namas grows, one can understand that real, but shifting, realities are being pointed to on more than one level and that ultimately they all break down to momentary fleeting experience. Best, Rob E. #116923 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:36 pm Subject: Re: Panna with concept as object szmicio Hi Phil, According to lesser panna, of a degree of sutta and cinta. Here reasoning or right examination, I think is yoniso manasikara, right thinking or wise reflection. This is kusala of lesser degree than panna of bhavana. Even hearing Dhamma or reflecting Dhamma, the must be wise attention or right thinking, yoniso manasikara. Milindapanha. Best wishes Lukas > Ph: Wow, I didn't know this, I have a lot to learn. Please tell me again about the first level of panna, is it suttamayapanna, what is it's object, only the characteristics of dhammas? surely it must be less powerful(?) than that. For example, isn't there panna of a weak degree that understands what a sutta or Abhudhamma says, for exampke, rhe difference"sati" and "panna", as concepts? Pariyatti must include learning about dhammas as concepts (since they can only be content of thinking to begin with at first, right?) No panna then? #116924 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:43 pm Subject: "pls check the commentary for me" sarahprocter... F/w message from Rob Moult =========================== "Rob.Moult@..." wrote: >Hi Nina / Sarah, A Dhamma friend and I are discussing the well-known portion of the Kalama Sutta which reads, "When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' " then you should abandon them." The Pali term for "criticized by the wise" is "vinnugarahita"; a compound word where "vinnu" means "wise" (same word as is used in the Dhamma Vandana) and garahita means "censured / criticized". My Dhamma friend and I are discussing the use of the word "vinnu" in the context of the Kalama sutta... did the Buddha mean to imply an "ariyan type knowledge" or did the Buddha mean to imply a more traditional, mundane definition for "wise"? Please check the commentary to see if it clarifies this point. I am not sure why, but I cannot log into my Yahoo account and this means that I cannot post this message on DSG. I will try to look into this log-in problem over the next couple of days. Metta, Rob M :-) #116925 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:40 am Subject: Without Controversy! bhikkhu5 Friends: Avoiding all Controversies allows inner Peace! The brahmin Mgan diya asked the Buddha about how to find inner peace: Mental purity is neither caused by particular views, nor by learning, nor by knowledge, nor even by perfect morality. Neither by absence of right view, missing learning, lack of knowledge, or tainted morality, not by that either! Discarding all these oppositions, detached, calmed, independent, one stops longing for any form of existence... Whoever thinks himself equal, superior, or inferior, he will dispute on that account! But the imperturbable one does not enter any self-deceit! Since for such one, there is no I-Me-Self or Ego how much less can there then ever be any equal, inferior or superior I-Ego! Leaving home, wandering homeless, not making acquaintances in any village, free from desire for sensual pleasures, showing no preferences, such sage will never engage in any controversy. One who really knows does not become proud because of any particular view, learning, thought, or experience, for he is not tied to, influenced by, or led by any of these momentary illusions.. He is completely released through his understanding. But those who cling to certain experiences and particular views wander about causing controversy! Sutta-Nipta 839-842-844-846-847 Edited excerpt. Commentary: This true speech made Mgan diya and his wife never-returners (Angmins ). <....> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #116926 From: "philip" Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:15 pm Subject: Re: Panna with concept as object philofillet Hi Lukas, thank you, but my question was about whether lesser panna can have concept as object. There is sati tgat is not satipatthana, and has concepts as object. (For example, when we remember words of the Buddha, sati of a lesser degree is basically what allows us to remember things, along with sanna, virya. Doesn't panna of lesser degree understand words of tge Buddha, for example, in a way tgat does not have characteristics of dhammas as object? If the answer is "no" according to Abhidhamma I will accept it happily, Abhidhamma oveerules our own interpretations/theories... Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi Phil, > According to lesser panna, of a degree of sutta and cinta. > > Here reasoning or right examination, I think is yoniso manasikara, right thinking or wise reflection. This is kusala of lesser degree than panna of bhavana. Even hearing Dhamma or reflecting Dhamma, the must be wise attention or right thinking, yoniso manasikara. > > > > > 'Reasoning has always comprehension as its mark; but wisdom has cutting off.' > > 'But how is comprehension the characteristic of reasoning, and cutting off of wisdom? Give me an illustration.' > > 'You remember the barley reapers?' > > 'Yes, certainly.' > > 'How do they reap the barley?' > > 'With the left hand they grasp the barley into a bunch, and taking the sickle into the right hand, they cut it off with that.' > > 'Just even, so, O king, does the recluse by his thinking grasp his mind, and by his wisdom cut off his failings. In this way is it that comprehension is the characteristic of reasoning, but cutting off of wisdom.' > > 'Well put, Ngasena!'> > Milindapanha. > > > Best wishes > Lukas > > > > > > Ph: Wow, I didn't know this, I have a lot to learn. Please tell me again about the first level of panna, is it suttamayapanna, what is it's object, only the characteristics of dhammas? surely it must be less powerful(?) than that. For example, isn't there panna of a weak degree that understands what a sutta or Abhudhamma says, for exampke, rhe difference"sati" and "panna", as concepts? Pariyatti must include learning about dhammas as concepts (since they can only be content of thinking to begin with at first, right?) No panna then? > #116927 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "pls check the commentary for me" sarahprocter... Hi Rob M, "Rob.Moult@..." wrote: >A Dhamma friend and I are discussing the well-known portion of the Kalama Sutta which reads, "When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' " then you should abandon them." >The Pali term for "criticized by the wise" is "vinnugarahita"; a compound word where "vinnu" means "wise" (same word as is used in the Dhamma Vandana) and garahita means "censured / criticized". >My Dhamma friend and I are discussing the use of the word "vinnu" in the context of the Kalama sutta... did the Buddha mean to imply an "ariyan type knowledge" or did the Buddha mean to imply a more traditional, mundane definition for "wise"? .... S:I hardly have any books with me in HK, but I'm sure the reference to "the wise" will refer to the ariyan wise, or at least those on the path to becoming the ariyan wise, including any direct understanding of the Teachings. If it referred to the traditional/conventional wise, then it would include many of the categories that the Buddha taught us not to to be influenced by as summarised in a post by Jon here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/97381 .... >I am not sure why, but I cannot log into my Yahoo account and this means that I cannot post this message on DSG. I will try to look into this log-in problem over the next couple of days. ... S: If you still have difficulty, you might like to contact Pt or Jon off-list for any assistance. Metta Sarah ===== #116928 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ann's reflections sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- On Wed, 17/8/11, Lukas wrote: >S:rupa as the sick room, citta as the sick person, vedana as the sickness, sanna as the immediate cause and sankhara as the source of the sickness. > Even now as we discuss dhamma, the vedana and all other conditioned dhammas are sick! ... >L: Even in the moment of alobha, adosa and amoha(optionaly)? Does always the khandhas are upadanakhandhas? ... S: Yes, all conditioned dhammas are sick in that they are all sankhara dukkha. Khandhas are upadanakhandhas when clung to. Even the Buddha's khandhas were upadana khandha - impermanent elements that were the subject of clinging by those who were not arahats. Metta Sarah ======= #116929 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Implications of Foulness of the Body sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- On Thu, 18/8/11, truth_aerator wrote: >>S:Isn't it more helpful to understand that the body we find so >precious is just an illusion and in truth there are just the various >rupas, the various elements arising and falling away? >================================================== >Momentariness doesn't seem to affect me much, and perhaps many people as well. Lets remember the 3 sights that affected the Buddha: the old man, the sick man and the dead man. .... S: The Buddha's Teachings help us to get closer and closer to understanding the nature of dhammas and eventually the ti-lakkhana of dhammas. If we insist on the Teachings just being about a conventional understanding of old age, sickness and death as opposed to the momentary aging, sickness and death of dhammas, we might as well study any other kind of conventionally wise teaching. Metta Sarah ======= #116930 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anagarika's precepts sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, >> S: I'll look forward to it! Judging by your recent helpful posts, quotes and comments, it seems that the Retreat and all the travel hardship inspired you:-)) >L: It wasn't hard too much. I used to pain. You're helpful post on attha lokiyadhamma was a great support. Everywhere is misery, no matter we are at home, or struggling with cold sleeping at a bench. Doesn't matter. .... S: Your experiences always remind me of my own when I was younger. Like you, I had a keen interest in the Dhamma when I was young, but lots of worldly difficulties and upsets along the way. Once I was travelling with two friends in India. We were waiting somewhere between Rajghir and Kathmandu for the one public bus a day, so took it in turns to be the look-out. One of my friends was reading his book when it was his turn, so we missed the bus and had to sleep in a field and wait another day:-) Just different dhammas through different doorways, however, conditioned by kamma and support factors. The interest and understanding of Dhamma is the most important factor. .... >>S: Really, you have a lot of appreciation that right understanding and wise consideration can occur anywhere, anytime.... regardless of those worldly conditions! >L: Due to saddha, right and wise devotion, that is basis for all kusalas. Without saddha we are not able to develop more and more right understanding. .... S: And without right understanding, there won't be any growth of saddha. ... >At the retreat I realized that is not a place or favourable conditions that make understanding to arise. It is learning, reading more, and leaving it all to conditions. .... S: The more we appreciate what understanding is, what are the objects of understanding and how it grows, any place can be the 'favourable' place. We mind less about the circumstances. .... >We can learn that all that appears is not ours, out of control, conditioned. Kusala thinks, akusala thinks AS says. When akusala thinking appear we are susceptible to take it all for mine. We cannot change akusala for kusala. Gradually we can have more and more understanding of kamma and vipaka. I think kamma and vipaka are known directly with the second vipassana ~nana. .... S: At the second vip ~nana there is the understanding of conditions, but kamma and vipaka only really understood at the third vip ~nana when there is the understanding of the rising and falling away of dhammas, I think. ... >I always appreciated your reminders on present moment. .... S: Likewise - like now, that's all there is! We can rejoice that there is some understanding and appreciation that the dhamma appearing now is the entire world. Metta Sarah p.s I'll be going to England on Thursday for 2 wks and will have very limited internet at my mother's cottage in the countryside. ===== #116931 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:44 pm Subject: Re: The Implications of Foulness of the Body szmicio Dear Sarah, > S: The Buddha's Teachings help us to get closer and closer to understanding the nature of dhammas and eventually the ti-lakkhana of dhammas. If we insist on the Teachings just being about a conventional understanding of old age, sickness and death as opposed to the momentary aging, sickness and death of dhammas, we might as well study any other kind of conventionally wise teaching. L: That's why we consider and understand sickness, old age, death with the whole paticcasamupadda. Best wishes Lukas #116932 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:46 pm Subject: Re: Panna with concept as object szmicio Hi Phil, > Hi Lukas, thank you, but my question was about whether lesser panna can have concept as object. There is sati tgat is not satipatthana, and has concepts as object. (For example, when we remember words of the Buddha, sati of a lesser degree is basically what allows us to remember things, along with sanna, virya. Doesn't panna of lesser degree understand words of tge Buddha, for example, in a way tgat does not have characteristics of dhammas as object? If the answer is "no" according to Abhidhamma I will accept it happily, Abhidhamma oveerules our own interpretations/theories... L: Good question :P I think I am not able to answer that. Best wishes Lukas #116933 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, --- On Wed, 17/8/11, Ken H wrote: > S: There are different kinds/levels of virati, but when it (right speech/action/livelihood) arises as a path factor with the other path factors, it must have the same object, a dhamma. Likewise, when the virati factors arise with the lokuttara magga citta, the object must be nibbana. >The kusala cittas of dana and sila experience concepts of sentient beings, but without wrong view (without belief in the ultimate reality of a sentient being). Not only is there no wrong view at those times, there is no ignorance (which turns away from ultimate reality). .... S: yes.... ... >K: We all know that. So how does it work? How can we have a concept of something without believing it really exists (or without excluding the possibility that something very different really does exist)? .... S: Like now, we think about chairs and computers and people with kusala and akusala cittas. Even when there are akusala cittas, usually they are just with ignorance and attachment, not wrong view. When there is metta, dana or sila and there is concern for the others' welfare, that's all. There's no idea of anyone or anything existing. Even the Buddha thought about forests and postures, people and animals, but again, the concepts are just the object of kusala cittas. I know some people find it difficult to understand how small children and animals don't have wrong view arising (or right understanding for that matter) - simply, like us most the time, they think with kusala occasionally and akusala cittas about concepts without any deep thoughts about the existence of those people and things. ... >It works by having a concept of a paramattha dhamma! ... S: Only if they've heard the Buddha's Teachings and there is a beginning of pariyatti. Otherwise, not. Even for us and the Buddha and his disciples, at moments of dana and metta and non-path sila, concepts are the object, even though we know that in reality, there are only namas and rupas. .... >Even in mildly akusala cittas (when there is ignorance without wrong view) our concepts of sentient beings are not concepts of sukkha, icca and atta, are they? There is at those times an unspoken recognition that we are talking about fleeting, changeable states of consciousness. .... S: At those moments of ignorance without wrong view, there is no wrong idea of dhammas as sukkha, icca or atta, but neither is there any right idea of them as dukkha, anicca or anatta. However, at those moments of ignorance (without wrong view) there is still sanna vipallasa and citta vipallasa arising perceiving the dukkha as sukkha and the asubha as subha. (These are only eradicated by the arahant and anagami respectively). There is sanna vipallasa arising with all akusala cittas. ... >So when you tell an ordinary person that rites and rituals (the physical action of giving a gift, for example) are ultimately ineffectual he knows what you mean. He knows there are ultimately fleeting states of consciousness, he knows it is virtually impossible to tell anyone's real state of consciousness at any given time, and he knows it is impossible to create generosity (etc) by ritual activity. .... S: I would define "the physical action of giving a gift" as being a rite and ritual. Rites and rituals depend on the the citta with wrong view which motivates a deed. ... >So I think it is very common for people to have concepts of another, greater, reality. Even if they don't know they are having them. .... S: Just thinking about states of consciousness, generosity, motives and so on, nothing to do with understanding dhammas as anatta, though. >>S: Ken, remember panna arises in the development of samatha and the development of pariyatti/patipatti. >So, now, if there is wise reflection on abstaining from harming beings, for example, it is samatha with panna. The object is a concept. All kinds of samatha bhavana up to jhana cittas develop with panna. Concepts are nearly always the objects. -------------------- >KH: Yes, but if we closely examine those concepts they are not of lasting states. They are of fleeting states. Even uninstructed people know that sentient beings do not remain the same. They know a person can be generous one moment and stingy the next. (And, most of the time, at various stages in between.) .... S: Yes, but at moments of dana or metta, for example, there is no thinking about fleeting states, sentient beings not remaining the same and so on. There are just the kusala cittas which are concerned for the others' welfare. The thinking you suggest that is common knowledge is common thinking which may occur with kusala or akusala cittas. ... >So I am suggesting that all of us " Dhamma students and non-Dhamma students alike " spend most of our days having vague concepts of an ultimate, fleeting, reality. Even if we don't know exactly what it is. .... S: I think we spend most of our days in ignorance and attachment without any thoughts about realities. When there are 'vague concepts' as you suggest, they may be right or wrong, kusala or akusala - only panna can tell at the present moment. What's important is that none of those dhammas, none of those moments of thinking, none of the kusala or akusala is atta. Metta Sarah ======= Ken H #116934 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhas instruction in the suttas sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- On Wed, 17/8/11, truth_aerator wrote: >>S: The "orthodox" Theravada teachings as preserved by the >Mahavihara, including the Abhidhamma and ancient Pali commentaries >and including the Suttas, all point to the Truths, beginning with >the understanding of conditioned dhammas, of the khandhas, as being >anicca, dukkha and anatta. >>Furthermore, "Intention" or cetana cetasika was never given by the >Buddha in the suttas or any other part of the Theravada teachings as >a Path Factor. >================================================= A:. And they *do* teach intentional, energetic and willful development. What about viriya (Energy) ? What about 4 iddhipadas and 4 right efforts? .... S: These only develop with the development of right understanding and the other path factors. While they are taken for oneself who must strive and make an effort, rather than as conditioned dhammas not belonging to anyone, they will never develop. Metta Sarah p.s See lots and lots under "Effort - Right" in "Useful Posts" ================= #116935 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:16 pm Subject: Re: Anagarika's precepts szmicio Dear Sarah, > >L: Due to saddha, right and wise devotion, that is basis for all kusalas. Without saddha we are not able to develop more and more right understanding. > .... > S: And without right understanding, there won't be any growth of saddha. > ... L: True. Withount understanding, saddha may be taken for my devotion, my trust to the Dhamma. With right understanding, it can be seen as just conditioned dhamma, that have its own function only. A powerful function if we consider going on the Path. > S: At the second vip ~nana there is the understanding of conditions, but kamma and vipaka only really understood at the third vip ~nana when there is the understanding of the rising and falling away of dhammas, I think. > ... L: Well, is this still a tender insight, the 3rd nana? The first one is the knowing what is mental and material, the second knows that all is conditioned, not wihout conditions, and I think maybe in such a moment the kamma law is known? What is the 3rd one? > p.s I'll be going to England on Thursday for 2 wks and will have very limited internet at my mother's cottage in the countryside. L: This is really close and cheap to Poland from London, Sarah. You and Jon are always welcome. Visit of a wise friends would be of great benefit to me. Best wishes Lukas #116936 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:22 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Tue, 16/8/11, upasaka@... wrote: > So, in reality, there is no person as a genuine and single entity who does anything, including intentionally practice, but there IS intentional practice. There are lots of instances of intention that result in physical and mental conditions, a.k.a. "actions". This includes "intentional practice". ----------------------------------------------- S: I'd put it that "there is no person who does anything, including intentionally practice, but there can be practice. Practice, patipatti or bhavana, is defined as the development of right understanding and associated factors. ... >>S:Furthermore, "Intention" or cetana cetasika was never given by the Buddha in the suttas or any other part of the Theravada teachings as a Path Factor. --------------------------------------------- >HCW: I have no argument there! --------------------------------------------- S: So, when the "Way", the Fourth Noble Truth, is defined as the Eightfold Path, beginning with Samma ditthi, you'll agree that Intention, cetana cetasika is not mentioned. .... >S:Vis. XVI: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." --------------------------------------------- >HCW: Quite so. However, what is this "urging of insight into the Four Noble Truths that is being made"? The urging is intended to result in intentional action! It is a suggesting and reminder to intentionally turn attention and thoughts in that direction. ------------------------------------------------------- S: It is an "urging" reminder that now there are only conditioned namas and rupas arising and falling away and that at this moment there can be an understanding of the real world appearing now. It is not an urging of "intentional action", as I understand. Metta Sarah ====== #116937 From: "philip" Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:30 pm Subject: Re: Panna with concept as object philofillet Hi Lukas > > L: Good question :P I think I am not able to answer that. Thanks anyway, you are helping me to read and reflect and ask questions instead of just spouting my opinions, I appreciate that. Metta, Phil #116938 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:05 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 8/22/2011 6:22:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, --- On Tue, 16/8/11, upasaka@... wrote: > So, in reality, there is no person as a genuine and single entity who does anything, including intentionally practice, but there IS intentional practice. There are lots of instances of intention that result in physical and mental conditions, a.k.a. "actions". This includes "intentional practice". ----------------------------------------------- S: I'd put it that "there is no person who does anything, including intentionally practice, but there can be practice. Practice, patipatti or bhavana, is defined as the development of right understanding and associated factors. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Intentional attention to whatever arises, noting wholesome and unwholesome - welcoming & furthering the former and avoiding & letting go of the latter - is part of standard Buddhist practice repeatedly urged by the Buddha. It seems that 'intentional' is a curse word in some Buddhist circles, though! ------------------------------------------------- ... >>S:Furthermore, "Intention" or cetana cetasika was never given by the Buddha in the suttas or any other part of the Theravada teachings as a Path Factor. --------------------------------------------- >HCW: I have no argument there! --------------------------------------------- S: So, when the "Way", the Fourth Noble Truth, is defined as the Eightfold Path, beginning with Samma ditthi, you'll agree that Intention, cetana cetasika is not mentioned. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: No need for paraphrasing me. I agreed that intention is not a path factor ... period. ----------------------------------------------- .... >S:Vis. XVI: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." --------------------------------------------- >HCW: Quite so. However, what is this "urging of insight into the Four Noble Truths that is being made"? The urging is intended to result in intentional action! It is a suggesting and reminder to intentionally turn attention and thoughts in that direction. ------------------------------------------------------- S: It is an "urging" reminder that now there are only conditioned namas and rupas arising and falling away and that at this moment there can be an understanding of the real world appearing now. It is not an urging of "intentional action", as I understand. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Then the word 'urging' should not be part of your vocabulary. ;-) Synonyms for 'urge' are 'egg (on)', 'encourage', 'exhort', 'goad', 'nudge', 'press', 'prod', and 'prompt'. -------------------------------------------------- Metta Sarah ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116939 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:44 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) ptaus1 Hi RobE, > > > > pt: First, we have to keep in mind what's the purpose of Dhamma, and abhidhamma for that matter? Imo, it is to describe the truth, which when understood leads to the end of samsara. > > > > > > RE: That is one interpretation of the path. > > > > pt: Are you saying that path culminates in something other than parinibbana, i.e. the end of samsara/round of rebirths? > > RE: No, I'm not referring to the second part of your sentence, but to the first - that describing the truth is the purpose of the Dhamma, and that understanding that description leads to the end of samsara. I don't think that understanding the description of the truth leads to the end of samsara, which is the pariyatti-oriented view. pt: See, a strawman again. I say A, you say "you said B", and then you say "B is wrong because of C". Of course, neither B nor C have anything to do with A. I hope it's obvious that such discussion approach, repeated over and over, becomes very tyring, particularly in your case, since your replies are generally extremely long and difficult in terms of keeping track of definite points. Anyway, to return to my original statement, "which when understood" referred to understanding the truth, not to understanding the "description of the truth". So it's sort of like what you write below regarding the correct practice: > RE: I think that understanding the description of the truth leads to a correct understanding of correct practice, and that only correct practice leads to the ending of samsara. pt: which would indicate we're in agreement somewhat. > RE: I think you could understand the truth as described by the Dhamma for many many lifetimes, better and better and in more detail, without creating the conditions that would lead to the ending of samsara. pt: Speculation, who knows. > RE: So the question is about what practice leads to the ending of samsara, not whether the end of the path is parinibbana, which we would all agree. pt: I'd write strawman for purposes of accuracy, but for purposes of diplomacy, my original statement was referring to understanding of the truth that leads to the end of samsara, which I think can be equated to your statement regarding practice that leads to the ending of samsara, i.e. understanding of the truth is the practice, to put it simply, so we're still in agreement more or less. > RE: There are many here who believe that the study of the Dhamma on that level of "understanding the description" will in and of itself eventually unfold into the transformation of consciousness and the direct realization of the nature of self and reality, ie, satipatthana. There are also those who believe that having understood the description of reality and the path to some degree, that one then continues a two or three-fold practice: continuing to understand the nature of reality and the description of the path as given in the Dhamma, the continuing practice in everyday life to be aware of what is actually happening in the moment and to let go or become more detached from those things which arise as we become aware of them, and to practice the development of awareness and letting go through formal meditative practice as described by the Buddha. It is my view that the application of the Dhamma to everyday life, to understanding the Buddha's teaching, and to practicing towards the skillful development of awareness and letting go, is the threefold action that causes the path to move towards the ending of samsara. pt: Ok, you are still in the midst of the whole strawman argument there, but for purposes of diplomacy, taking the above as an argument on its own - I think you are still mistaken regarding what pariyatti is. Maybe discuss it with Jon, Sarah, KenH, Sukin, they're far better at it than me. E.g. to take the three items you mention that describe your practice: understanding the description, everyday practice, and meditative practice - these three things, provided they are all kusala cittas, would all still be integral elements of pariyatti I think. In other words, hearing the dhamma (description), considering it through daily life experiences (everyday practice), and actual moments of understanding (bhavana/meditation/development) are all pariyatti I think. So your argument predicated on "There are many here who believe that the study of the Dhamma on that level of "understanding the description"..." is off since the initial assumption about what is pariyatti isn't quite right I'd say. > RE: I understand the arguments that any formal purposeful development of awareness and release of clinging and craving only assert and strengthen the false idea of control and self-view, but I don't agree with that argument and I think it is incorrect. pt: My impression is that you don't quite understand those arguments. Perhaps consider this. Everything is purposeful because every citta has intention. But the citta will be kusala or akusala depending on the roots. The roots and the citta are conditioned. If citta is akusala, it won't condition a kusala citta in the near or far future (it's possible, but highly unlikely, so most probably won't). If citta is kusala, it already constitutes development, and will condition more kusala in the near or far future. Kusala citta, in terms of a path moment, is when panna sees the general or individual characteristics of the object. That's as dry as I can put it I think, if it makes sense. > RE: In my view of the path, it is possible and it is necessary to study the theory of the Dhamma through sutta and perhaps through Abdhidhamma and commentary for those who find the greatest knowledge of the Dhamma in that way, and also to practice and development the enlightenment factors through both everyday life and meditation without increasing akusala or self-view. When akusala and self-view arise, as they will in any case, that is just more grist for the mill to become aware and release whatever attachment is realized. pt: Agreed, if "practice and development" refer to kusala cittas that see the object to arise in a conditioned manner. > RE: I also don't believe that the culmination of the path is a precise understanding of the specifics of dhammas, but rather a transformational consciousness that realizes the vanity of whatever arises and is able to let go of attachment to whatever arises. pt: Leaving aside the possibility that you're implying that consciousness lasts in some way, wouldn't the above mean that every citta arises with the root of attachment (lobha)? I'm not sure that's quote right as there are other roots, and not all aksuala cittas arise with lobha. If you were to say "let go of ignorance (moha) to whatever arise", I could agree with that, because moha arises with every akusala citta. > RE: In my understanding this is not just a matter of an individual citta letting go of its object of scrutiny, but a full-personality letting go and upliftment. Those who do not believe however that the body and personality are real and subject to various states will not agree with this sense of an actual person being lifted up to another state of being. That actual person is made up of many moments of consciousness, physical action and internal states arising, but the pattern of what arises and how these are regarded by consciousness is transformed and changed. pt: Yeah, I don't quite get how that bit about people being lifted up fits into buddhism, so I'll skip it rather than debating what I don't understand. > RE: If you believe that the path and enlightenment is a matter of an individual citta at a moment taking a specific object for that moment, then what you say makes sense. I don't really believe that the path comes down to one specific kind of technical moment of taking a special object as object of citta. I think it's a more consistent pattern of a consciousness that has been changed in many many moments and is transformed from its former way of taking objects, and that even this doesn't fully describe the complete profile of the different levels of experience that have changed. I guess you could describe that as cittas, cetasikas and rupas of various kinds in various patterns and that would be agreeable to me, but I Don't think that technical language in the way it is described in commentaries necessarily fully describes what takes place and how many billions of moments are involved or how the pattern of those arising and being taken as objects changes in such a case. Not just this or that single individual citta, or ten or twenty that makes the transformation take place, but a continual stream of cittas that have been evolving in that direction and reach a certain point of understanding. I don't think that each single individual citta contains the universe. I just don't agree with that way of looking at things. pt: There are many things in the above that are sort of red flags for the belief in lasting consciousness, etc. For purposes of diplomacy I'd say this though - reference to one path moment, a single conditioned citta taking an object and then falling away, etc - imo all these primarily serve the purpose of reminding us about anatta and conditioned nature of every experience, which hopefully helps towards direct insight at some point. Whether there are patterns of concsiousness, streams, evolution of consciousness, all these things, though comforting and maybe even logical, don't really remind me about anatta and conditionality, which is why I don't think they are useful directions of speculation. Imo, that is. > > pt: "conventional reality is unreal and that the unseen view of momentary dhammas is real" - that's a strawman of yours. > > RE: It's not exactly a strawman, pt: Yes it is because I never said that "conventional reality is unreal and that the unseen view of momentary dhammas is real", so therefore these two, and the antagonism between them, exist in your head, not mine. > RE: If you are saying that conventional reality is *not* unreal, then there are many who would not agree with that. Many say that conventional reality is merely conceptual and does not occur as we experience it. pt: I find endless arguments on this real/unreal subject, and then the supposed antagonism between the two, a bit off course, to say the least. I mean, the process of cognition works as it does, and well, that's how things are. There's a sense-door process, and then a mind-door process, and then more mind-door process, with objects that change from dhamma, to nimitta of a dhamma, to nimitta of a concept. And that's it. Which component in all this is real and which is unreal? The argument doesn't really apply at all I'd say. > RE: As for the unseen view of dhammas, it's true isn't it? If you haven't experienced it directly or at least through a convincing enough nimitta that you know that you are tracking the true reality of momentary dhammas, then it is still a theory, no matter how fully you may think it is correct. So it is believed in, but the dhammas are still unseen. If that is the case, it's a matter of being convinced logically and having faith in that teaching, but it is still not known directly. pt: If, ok. > RE: We do know directly, for what it's worth, the experience of drinking a glass of water. pt: You are serious here? > RE: We can say it's conceptual and that it's not the true reality we experience, but we don't actually know that. Again, it's a matter of faith and belief that this is the case, and that is a conceptual understanding. pt: And here? > RE: So where's the straw man? pt: I hope I addressed that way up above. > > > RE: When the mundane path is applied to everyday life as it is known and lived, and at the same time contemplation is given to the units of experience and how they arise from moment to moment, this gives a healthy balance and a healthy path. But dismissing everyday experience in favor of 'right concepts' does not seem healthy to me. > > > > pt: Strawman. > > RE: Well you say that summarily, but I don't mean it as a strawman. pt: Well, basically, what you said comes across as if I said that everyday experience should be dismissed in favor of "right concepts". I didn't, and the statement on its own merits is dubious. > RE: I have been told many times that having the right conceptual understanding of realities, eg, pariyatti, is the prerequisite and also the means by which direct understanding develops, but that it will not develop to that point possibly for many lifetimes. So one is trusting and believing that this is the right path, but meanwhile the experiences of life are seen as concepts instead of being taken as actual existing objects of experience. pt: This last bit "meanwhile the experiences of life are seen as concepts" is speculation on your behalf, and possibly a result of not really understanding what pariyatti is. I'm not saying I understand it that great either, but for me, what you said has little to do with pariyatti. > RE: That is the truth. So it's not a strawman to me. If you think my view is incorrect, that is fine with me. Discuss it on the merits, but dismissing it as a kind of "ruse," eg, strawman, does not deal with it very well. It's not meant that way. pt: I think I explained that "strawman" refers to putting things into my mouth that I haven't said and then refuting them. In essence then you are having an argument with yourself, not with me. > > > > pt: Second, how is that truth described? Imo, by pointing out dhammas and their characteristics - anatta, etc. > > > > > > > > So, i guess my point is that samsara will not stop no matter how well you use your knives and forks. Neither will samsara stop if you stop using your knives and forks completely. Neither will it stop if you try to see the anatta nature of knives and forks. Etc. Samsara will only stop once anatta nature of feeling and other khandas is seen. Feeling and other khandas are dhammas. > > > > > RE: I don't agree with this absolute distinction, which is quite polarized between everyday experiences and dhammas, > > > > pt: Strawman. > > > > > RE: nor the distinction between knives and forks - everyday activities - and feelings. > > > > pt: Strawman. > > RE: These "strawman" references may be satisfying for you, but they're not going to lead to greater understanding, at least on my part. pt: Alright, for purposes of diplomacy, where did I say that everyday experiences and dhammas are polarised. Dhammas are everyday expereinces. As are concepts. Again, that's how process of cognition works. There's no polarisation. Same for knives and forks, acitivities and feelings. I don't think I said any of it. What I said was: "Samsara will only stop once anatta nature of feeling and other khandas is seen. Feeling and other khandas are dhammas." To express it differently in terms of the process of cognition, if panna is present during javana processes of the sense-door process and mind-door process that take a dhamma as object, that'd be path moments that lead to the end of samsara (eventually). If panna is present during mind-door processes that take concepts as objects, that would still be kusala moments, which might at some point condition the arising of panna in the previous two kinds of processes, but these wouldn't be classified as path moments I think. > RE: I mean what I say as serious statements. I'm sorry you see them as setups or false distinctions, because I really mean them as statements of what I see and understand in the philosophy under discussion. If you want to explain how they are incorrect distinctions, feel free; otherwise, I get it - you think they are strawmen but I don't agree. pt: I hope I explained the strawman issue above. ... > RE: Well I'm no master of the lingo, so I'm just saying what I think as best I can. Ken O. has recently stated that a conventional object, a concept, can be the object of mundane insight. There is some dispute on this subject, but I'm not technically sharp enough to understand it on that level. This makes sense to me but I can't really argue it out on a technical level. pt: Let's drop it then. KenO needs to figure this one out with Sarah and others. > > > RE: But to intellectually map a degree of microscopic namas and rupas that are not really experienced just provides an intellectual overlay. > > > > pt: Strawman. > > RE: Yeah, I was guessing that's what you would say. Whenever I describe the single citta nama-rupa universe as "not really experienced" you say it is a strawman. pt: Strawman referred to my alleged advocating "to intellectually map a degree of microscopic namas and rupas", which of course is absurd, while the statement by itself is nonsensical. Again, remember the purpose of Dhamma, so when someone says "citta arises with dosa" for example, it's not to describe the universe like science does, but simply to encourage understanding of the truth, closer and closer. For example, next time you get angry at Mr.X for doing Y, your attention will not be stuck for half an hour on the story why you're angry at him while just getting more angry, but instead, perception might recall the citta arising with dosa and attention will then turn to anger (dosa) itself and panna will see it as the actual problem in the whole situation. That'd be beginnings of pariyatti I think. Then some other time when Mr.Z says something and you get angry, attention might jump straight to the anger and panna will recognise it as akusala and won't even bother with the whole story of Mr.Z and his bad way with words. That'd be beginnings of patipatti I think. And then at some opportune point later, attention might jump to anger and see it as anatta. And so on, closer and closer to the truth. > RE: Well, sorry, pt, but it's not actually experienced by anyone around here, so it's not a strawman, it's reality. That doesn't make that philosophy incorrect or untrue, but it doesn't make it correct or true either. pt: So when you are angry, isn't there dosa? Slowly we learn to see it more and more closer, as encouraged by the statements like "citta arises with dosa", so, minus the story about who said what, minus the "I don't like anger", minus the "my" anger, etc. It just gets to be seen more and more clearly, so firstly less and less like a rationalisation, then less and less like a concept of a dhamma, and then more and more as direct experience that is anatta. > RE: So go ahead, keep saying "strawman" as much as you like. It's not a substitute for discussing these statements on the merits. I understand if that doesn't seem worth your time, since you disagree with them, but that's up to you. pt: I hope you understand my strawman objections so far. I appreciate the ability to restate someone's statement for purposes of checking your own understanding, but if unclear, then the logical step is to ask for clarification, rather than assume something else and then refute it, thus producing a strawman. > > > RE: I think it's better to be aware of the namarupa nature of what arises without worrying about whether it is conventional or paramatha and see the characteristics, the attachments, the feelings that attend it, rather than intellectualize it. > > > > pt: You are a master strawman maker. > > RE: Well one thing is clear, you are master at saying "strawman," for what it's worth. I don't think it's a strawman, but without a more substantive exchange, it's hard to say much about it one way or the other. Hope you're having fun. pt: Strawman referred to my alleged advocating of intellectualizing it. Basically, I don't differ too much from your statement now: "I think it's better to be aware of the namarupa nature of what arises without worrying about whether it is conventional or paramatha and see the characteristics, the attachments, the feelings that attend it" > > > > pt: So i guess another point that has to be made is that there's nothing wrong with concepts. They are very useful in sustaining life. But sustaining life is not the same as ending samsara. > > > > > > RE: I don't think that's really the question. It is whether what you are calling concepts can be objects of awareness. The philosophy that is often subscribed to on dsg says 'no,' but that is a kind of intellectualism as well. > > > > pt: Master of masters in fact. > > Maybe. Or maybe you just don't like what I'm saying and don't want to think about it. pt: Strawman refers to the statement "It is whether what you are calling concepts can be objects of awareness. The philosophy that is often subscribed to on dsg says 'no,'". I don't think that's right at all. See the recent thread on abstention for example. ... > RE: I was saying that you see a person and of course you apprehend them as such - this is Rob E. who is a master strawman-maker. But according to dhamma theory Rob e. does not exist as a person as such - that is understood to be a concept. So you are at odds with your own natural perception. You see Rob E, but you think that seeing is just a conceptual construction. It takes an act of intellect to overrule your natural perception of Rob E., master strawman-maker, and to say to yourself, "He is just a concept." That is what I mean by an intellectual overlay. I hope that's more clear. pt: Sure, but that's pure speculation which has little to do with how things really happen. The purpose of saying things like "a person is a concept, while thinking about the person is a dhamma" for example, is again to encourage direct understanding. E.g. perhaps next time I see RobE and start getting annoyed with his long posts, my attention will be encouraged to be drawn away from the whole story and will just notice thinking itself. No more story. And then at some later point thinking might be recognised as anatta. And annoyance and anger won't even enter into equation anymore. Hence akusala tendencies are getting diminished. (Simplified example, but I hope you see what I'm getting at?) However, if nobody told me that thinking is a dhamma (something that can be known), I'd still be stuck in the story about RobE and his long posts and get all annoyed about it. > > pt: Anyway, then below it seems you are having a discussion with your dsg alter-ego, so it seems pointless to intrude on the dialogue other than to indicate portions which might be discussed later: > > RE: Yes, dsg has given me a kind of schizophrenia. I apologize for talking to myself in the middle of my post to you, or whatever. pt: Well, my statement referred to your arguing against points that I never raised, nor necessarily disagreed with. So I couldn't see what was it other than talking to yourself. Which is alright, we all sometimes need to put our thought on paper to help us make sense of them... Though you really have a lot of them. > RE: Yeah, well I really wasn't talking to myself, pt. I was discussing the difference between what is actually experienced and what one "thinks" is being experienced. And "you" was meant to stand in for "one," anyone, even me, master strawman-maker, or you, adherent to dhamma theory, or whoever. All the above was a further extrapolation of what I said earlier and the same explanation can be used, so I'll repeat it, hopefully handling all your question marks at once: > "I was saying that you see a person and of course you apprehend them as such - this is Rob E. who is a master strawman-maker. But according to dhamma theory Rob e. does not exist as a person as such - that is understood to be a concept. So you are at odds with your own natural perception. You see Rob E, but you think that seeing is just a conceptual construction. It takes an act of intellect to overrule your natural perception of Rob E., master strawman-maker, and to say to yourself, "He is just a concept." That is what I mean by an intellectual overlay. I hope that's more clear." > > So I hope that's more clear as to what I am asserting, notwithstanding the fact that you may fervently disagree with it. pt: I hope I explained above in the example on thinking what you are missing. > > > RE: So it comes down to what is the role of pariyatti? I think it's introductory, to understand what the nature of the description is, > > > > pt: I think pariyatti goes a lot deeper. It's far from being just theoretical/intellectual knowledge alike to memorizing a shopping list for example. > > Now THAT's a strawman! I never said that the value of pariyatti is memorizing a conceptual shopping list. pt: Yes, quite possibly a strawman, but only in a very narrow context of the above statement. If we are more observant though, you have often mentioned "intellectual" in some permutation in connection with pariyatti, which generally implies something devoid of direct experince. As in below (notice the "not in fact actually experienced"): > RE: I simply said that in truth it is an intellectual understanding of realities according to a very sophisticated specific philosophy that breaks realities down into very definite units, and that this very specific breakdown is not in fact actually experienced. It is known about intellectually. Is anything in the above untrue about the basic setup of pariyatti? pt: Yes, I think it's quite untrue, as I hope I explained a long while above, because pariayatti includes the (kusala moments) of what you called daily experiences and meditation. Thus, basically, you have essentially equated pariyatti to memorizing a shopping list when you divorced it from direct experience. Imo, of course. > RE: Welcome to the strawman-making club. I see you have some natural talent in this area as well. pt: Thanks, though examine the pariyatti issue a bit closer if possible. > > In mystical lingo, I guess pariyatti would be the next best thing to experiencing dhammas directly. In abhdihamma lingo, I think pariyatti would be mind-door processes that take concepts of dhammas as objects. > > Right, so like I said, it's a conceptual path. And it believes in the importance of "right concept" over what it regards as "wrong experience." That is true - it's not a strawman. pt: Strawman aside, what the hell is a "right concept" and "wrong experience"? > > pt: So this would be arising I think just as the concepts of "knives and forks" are being created in the mind-door processes that closely follow the mind-door processes that have nimitta of dhamma as object. In mystical lingo that's be seeing the actual "thinking" rather than seeing "knives and forks", I guess. I'm note very good anymore with that lingo. > RE: Calling such descriptions mystical lingo is itself mystical lingo, just another kind. pt: "Mystical lingo" wasn't a derogatory term, just to indicate that it's not abhidhamma lingo, so relies on expressions that have different connotations than (often) the same abhidhamma terms. Meditators generally use that lingo, but since spending less time on such online boards, I've forgotten the specific connotations that the terms have. So, I'll try once again - if attention is on "knives and forks" then attention is not on thinking itself. Right? Further, while attention is on thinking, thinking can be recognised as anatta - something that arises in a conditioned way and isn't self. However, while the attention is on "knives and forks", there's no basis for the recognition of anatta and conditioned nature. You can think of what knives and forks are made of, what are they used for, etc, but usually there's no room for reflection on anatta, because, well, knives and forks are not habits and tendencies that can belong to a self. > > > RE: but then one has to let that go and experience the real feeling and sight and smell of what exists, not keep thinking one's way through experience. > > > > pt: Assuming one could actually choose to do either, and moreover do so with a kusala citta... > > RE: We might have different assumptions about that possibility. pt: ok > > > > pt: Further, there's no antagonism between concepts and dhammas. They are both essential part of the process of cognition. Hence why the only way for us to actually learn Dhamma is thanks to concepts. But when it comes to ending samsara, it will only happen when dhammas are understood. In practice, or insight in other words. > > > > > > RE: What will cause insight to come? What kind of practice? > > > > pt: I believe you discussed this with Jon many times. Hearing, considering, etc. Imo, in abhidhamma lingo, if citta is kusala, and sati and panna arise together with it (regardless of whether the object is a concept or a dhamma), that's practice/development/bhavana/meditation. But this is a post-facto statement. While it's happening, nothing I can do or not do. In fact, the whole premise of practice is misleading, because it takes away from anatta. > > RE: That is a specific dogma of the shared philosophy that you, Jon and others have on dsg. It is not an established truth. pt: Which is why there was "Imo" initially. > > > RE: I think that the practice that causes awareness and understanding to develop is more experience-oriented and less intellectual. The intellect should be applied to experience in order feel, taste and smell the reality that is spoken of. > > > > pt: Back to strawmen eh? > > RE: No it's not a strawman. pt: :) Of course it is. You're essentially saying that I'm advocating a more intellectual and a less experience-oriented practice. I'm not, and I'd say something entirely different, if asked about practice. > RE: It's a comparison of study without additional practice as you just advocated above, versus purposeful practice as others here think is correct practice and which has been disputed many times in this group, and which you just dismissed above. pt: Which of course is another strawman. I hope I explained that the antagonism you see between the two, as well as the very existence of the two practices, is wrong. > RE: You actually assert what I am describing and then call it a strawman two seconds later. Not a strawman, but an actual dividing line. pt: I hope it's clear that the dividing line is in your head only. > RE: Why do you think that every characterization of dhamma philosophy I make is a strawman? I'd like to see you give the alternative rendering of what is wrong with my statement that would not be a strawman. Show me where I'm wrong according to you, instead of saying strawman over and over again. pt: I hope I did so far, if not, ask for more clarification. ... > > > > pt: So, as an example, that would mean that anatta nature of thinking (dhamma) about knives and forks is understood amidst the actual thinking about knives and forks. Or that concentration (dhamma) on a knife or a fork is anatta. Or that perception (dhamma) of a knife or a fork is anatta. Etc. > > > > > RE: Such realization would indeed be valuable. And pariyatti takes that part of the way. But the immersion in life and practice with the Dhamma as guide is what gives real flesh to this endeavor and causes real experiences to come to light. > > > > pt: As mentioned, not good with mystical lingo anymore. "immersion in life, flesh, endeavour". I have no idea what all that means. > > RE: Well I'm sorry that I can't say anything that is not in dhamma theory lingo without you seeing it as incomprehensible mystical lingo. I am saying that 'real life' is the field of the Dhamma. Hope that's more clear. In case it's not, I think the Dhamma should be realized when having a real conversation with your mother or significant other, or the testy guy on the bus, and that is has to do more with the reactions and perceptions of daily life than what we read in the commentaries. pt: Again, imo, the antagonism between daily life and commentaries is in your head. I wouldn't say commentaries have anything against realising dhamma while you're talking to people. > > > > pt: However, if we are just stuck thinking about whether knives and forks are exist or not, is this not just philosophying on a conceptual level (so no actual insight, towards which conceptual understanding of Dhamma should stear us)? Furthermore, is this not attanuditthi?! In other words, it's not just that we are missing the point of Dhamma, but we are actually engaging in wrong view?! > > > > > > RE: The question is whether that is not already taking place, whether the assertion that dhammas alone are real and that concepts cannot be the object of awareness is inherently denying the existence of knives and forks. > > > > pt: Strawoman, see above. > > RE: I think you're missing the main points of this discussion by doing that. Why not take a look at what I am saying before you jump up and label it as basically being nonsense. pt: Strawman refers to the alleged assertion that concepts cannot be the object of awareness. In abhidhamma lingo, the statement would read smth like - panna cannot arise with citta that has a concept as object. I don't think that's a correct statement, and I don't think anyone ever said that here (other than KenH maybe, and KenO claiming Sarah said it, while she actually didn't). Again see the few recent threads that discuss this same issue, and I think the conclusion is usually the opposite. > RE: You haven't answered any of these assertions that are all saying that dhamma theory is a conceptual approach to reality, and that it thus dismisses what we natively experience in life. pt: I hope I addressed this above, i.e. that your assumption is wrong. > RE: That is a real object of discussion, not a strawman, and you are missing that discussion in order to glibly label everything I say. I think it's pretty damn defensive, pt. I am challenging the dhamma philosophy, but I'm not doing it off the cuff, and I think your reaction shows that you are probably not making much contact with what I'm saying. It may be that what I'm saying is ridiculous nonsense and not worth your time, but if you're going to bother to respond to it, you may as well think about what I'm asserting and say something back. pt: I think I called every strawman correctly so far, no? Though I was hoping not to have to spend another 4 hours on explaining why those were strawmen, i.e. was hoping you'd consider it yourself maybe. > > > RE: It is my view that Right View is not to deny physical or conventional existence, but to see that it has both a conventional and expanded aspect that can be understood, and that both are part of its actuality, to be further understood and detached from. > > > > pt: Taking your words on their best merit, I'd agree, though I can't be sure what you mean by "both a conventional and expanded aspect that can be understood, and that both are part of its actuality,". I'm hoping what you're saying is the same as the cognition process I outlined above according to ACMA. > > RE: I am including what folks here call "concepts" as part of the path. pt: I have no problem with that, as long as it is not classified as path moment. Best wishes pt #116940 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:52 am Subject: Re: KENs theories: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! kenhowardau Hi Pt, ---- <. . .> >> KH: Are you saying that people in general think of consciousness as something concrete and lasting? Not something intangible and fleeting? > pt: I think that the vast majority takes consciousness, knowingly or unknowingly, as something that last or is eternal. Otherwise, most religions wouldn't spend so much time on the soul, being, etc, that lasts, is reincarnated, resurrected, etc. ---- KH: I agree we are lost in an ocean of concepts, but I'm not so sure they are always concepts of lasting things. What, for example, is modern science's concept of consciousness? I doubt it is of something that lasts. More likely, consciousness is seen as something fleeting and (as yet) undefinable. (The last I heard, science had given up on trying to explain it.) When religions talk about an eternal soul aren't they talking about something that *owns and controls* consciousness? I don't think they are necessarily talking about consciousness itself. ------------- > Pt, For me, when I was just starting with the suttas and then abhidhamma, consciousness is one thing I couldn't quite get what it was. Because it's so fundamental to all experiences, and so it seems it's always there. Even now, most of the time, there's the assumption somewhere there in the back of the mind that it's all one and the same thing that lasts and will go on lasting. Hence why I like abhidhamma - it describes consciousness in various permutations and allows to sort of disidentify from it and (occasionally) see it as just another phenomenon. Nothing special. --------------- KH: I think I see what you are saying: consciousness *can* be seen as something permanent. And so, different states of consciousness (happy, sad etc) can be seen as one permanent consciousness doing different things at different times. I had forgotten that aspect of it. Ken H #116941 From: "philip" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:55 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) philofillet Hi Rob E (and pt all) Apologies to the mods for having to leave such a long msg untrimmed, but Rob, I have to say that I can at least understand your point of view up until the part about personality being real and letting go leading to upliftment, that sounds very wrong. Surely the letting go, if it comes will involve any idea of personality (as helpful as it can be at times now) being completely dispelled, dropped with the raft. What you wrote sounds like you believe the personality is an entity with ultimately lasting characteristics. Did I misunderstand? If not, anything you say about overvaluing the understanding of theory is moot, I think. Personally I struggle with understanding whether physiological beings and objects such as trees exist or not but the idea that persons or personalities have real existence must be wrong, surely. Howard wrote nicely about the whirlpool, often a wave rising fron the sea is used, but that moment by moment forming of a sense of person/personality can surely be understood even in theory as meaning no lasting personality that can be "uplifted" except by lobha moha. (I agree there are helpful moments of feeling happy that we are being uplifted above gross defilement-rooted behaviour, but surely that is a pretty primitive stage of development...) Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > > > > > pt: First, we have to keep in mind what's the purpose of Dhamma, and abhidhamma for that matter? Imo, it is to describe the truth, which when understood leads to the end of samsara. > > > > > > > > RE: That is one interpretation of the path. > > > > > > pt: Are you saying that path culminates in something other than parinibbana, i.e. the end of samsara/round of rebirths? > > > > RE: No, I'm not referring to the second part of your sentence, but to the first - that describing the truth is the purpose of the Dhamma, and that understanding that description leads to the end of samsara. I don't think that understanding the description of the truth leads to the end of samsara, which is the pariyatti-oriented view. > > pt: See, a strawman again. I say A, you say "you said B", and then you say "B is wrong because of C". Of course, neither B nor C have anything to do with A. I hope it's obvious that such discussion approach, repeated over and over, becomes very tyring, particularly in your case, since your replies are generally extremely long and difficult in terms of keeping track of definite points. > > Anyway, to return to my original statement, "which when understood" referred to understanding the truth, not to understanding the "description of the truth". So it's sort of like what you write below regarding the correct practice: > > > RE: I think that understanding the description of the truth leads to a correct understanding of correct practice, and that only correct practice leads to the ending of samsara. > > pt: which would indicate we're in agreement somewhat. > > > RE: I think you could understand the truth as described by the Dhamma for many many lifetimes, better and better and in more detail, without creating the conditions that would lead to the ending of samsara. > > pt: Speculation, who knows. > > > RE: So the question is about what practice leads to the ending of samsara, not whether the end of the path is parinibbana, which we would all agree. > > pt: I'd write strawman for purposes of accuracy, but for purposes of diplomacy, my original statement was referring to understanding of the truth that leads to the end of samsara, which I think can be equated to your statement regarding practice that leads to the ending of samsara, i.e. understanding of the truth is the practice, to put it simply, so we're still in agreement more or less. > > > RE: There are many here who believe that the study of the Dhamma on that level of "understanding the description" will in and of itself eventually unfold into the transformation of consciousness and the direct realization of the nature of self and reality, ie, satipatthana. There are also those who believe that having understood the description of reality and the path to some degree, that one then continues a two or three-fold practice: continuing to understand the nature of reality and the description of the path as given in the Dhamma, the continuing practice in everyday life to be aware of what is actually happening in the moment and to let go or become more detached from those things which arise as we become aware of them, and to practice the development of awareness and letting go through formal meditative practice as described by the Buddha. It is my view that the application of the Dhamma to everyday life, to understanding the Buddha's teaching, and to practicing towards the skillful development of awareness and letting go, is the threefold action that causes the path to move towards the ending of samsara. > > pt: Ok, you are still in the midst of the whole strawman argument there, but for purposes of diplomacy, taking the above as an argument on its own - I think you are still mistaken regarding what pariyatti is. Maybe discuss it with Jon, Sarah, KenH, Sukin, they're far better at it than me. E.g. to take the three items you mention that describe your practice: understanding the description, everyday practice, and meditative practice - these three things, provided they are all kusala cittas, would all still be integral elements of pariyatti I think. In other words, hearing the dhamma (description), considering it through daily life experiences (everyday practice), and actual moments of understanding (bhavana/meditation/development) are all pariyatti I think. > > So your argument predicated on "There are many here who believe that the study of the Dhamma on that level of "understanding the description"..." is off since the initial assumption about what is pariyatti isn't quite right I'd say. > > > > RE: I understand the arguments that any formal purposeful development of awareness and release of clinging and craving only assert and strengthen the false idea of control and self-view, but I don't agree with that argument and I think it is incorrect. > > pt: My impression is that you don't quite understand those arguments. Perhaps consider this. Everything is purposeful because every citta has intention. But the citta will be kusala or akusala depending on the roots. The roots and the citta are conditioned. If citta is akusala, it won't condition a kusala citta in the near or far future (it's possible, but highly unlikely, so most probably won't). If citta is kusala, it already constitutes development, and will condition more kusala in the near or far future. Kusala citta, in terms of a path moment, is when panna sees the general or individual characteristics of the object. That's as dry as I can put it I think, if it makes sense. > > > > RE: In my view of the path, it is possible and it is necessary to study the theory of the Dhamma through sutta and perhaps through Abdhidhamma and commentary for those who find the greatest knowledge of the Dhamma in that way, and also to practice and development the enlightenment factors through both everyday life and meditation without increasing akusala or self-view. When akusala and self-view arise, as they will in any case, that is just more grist for the mill to become aware and release whatever attachment is realized. > > pt: Agreed, if "practice and development" refer to kusala cittas that see the object to arise in a conditioned manner. > > > RE: I also don't believe that the culmination of the path is a precise understanding of the specifics of dhammas, but rather a transformational consciousness that realizes the vanity of whatever arises and is able to let go of attachment to whatever arises. > > pt: Leaving aside the possibility that you're implying that consciousness lasts in some way, wouldn't the above mean that every citta arises with the root of attachment (lobha)? I'm not sure that's quote right as there are other roots, and not all aksuala cittas arise with lobha. If you were to say "let go of ignorance (moha) to whatever arise", I could agree with that, because moha arises with every akusala citta. > > > RE: In my understanding this is not just a matter of an individual citta letting go of its object of scrutiny, but a full-personality letting go and upliftment. Those who do not believe however that the body and personality are real and subject to various states will not agree with this sense of an actual person being lifted up to another state of being. That actual person is made up of many moments of consciousness, physical action and internal states arising, but the pattern of what arises and how these are regarded by consciousness is transformed and changed. > > pt: Yeah, I don't quite get how that bit about people being lifted up fits into buddhism, so I'll skip it rather than debating what I don't understand. > > > RE: If you believe that the path and enlightenment is a matter of an individual citta at a moment taking a specific object for that moment, then what you say makes sense. I don't really believe that the path comes down to one specific kind of technical moment of taking a special object as object of citta. I think it's a more consistent pattern of a consciousness that has been changed in many many moments and is transformed from its former way of taking objects, and that even this doesn't fully describe the complete profile of the different levels of experience that have changed. I guess you could describe that as cittas, cetasikas and rupas of various kinds in various patterns and that would be agreeable to me, but I Don't think that technical language in the way it is described in commentaries necessarily fully describes what takes place and how many billions of moments are involved or how the pattern of those arising and being taken as objects changes in such a case. Not just this or that single individual citta, or ten or twenty that makes the transformation take place, but a continual stream of cittas that have been evolving in that direction and reach a certain point of understanding. I don't think that each single individual citta contains the universe. I just don't agree with that way of looking at things. > > pt: There are many things in the above that are sort of red flags for the belief in lasting consciousness, etc. For purposes of diplomacy I'd say this though - reference to one path moment, a single conditioned citta taking an object and then falling away, etc - imo all these primarily serve the purpose of reminding us about anatta and conditioned nature of every experience, which hopefully helps towards direct insight at some point. Whether there are patterns of concsiousness, streams, evolution of consciousness, all these things, though comforting and maybe even logical, don't really remind me about anatta and conditionality, which is why I don't think they are useful directions of speculation. Imo, that is. > > > > pt: "conventional reality is unreal and that the unseen view of momentary dhammas is real" - that's a strawman of yours. > > > > RE: It's not exactly a strawman, > > pt: Yes it is because I never said that "conventional reality is unreal and that the unseen view of momentary dhammas is real", so therefore these two, and the antagonism between them, exist in your head, not mine. > > > RE: If you are saying that conventional reality is *not* unreal, then there are many who would not agree with that. Many say that conventional reality is merely conceptual and does not occur as we experience it. > > pt: I find endless arguments on this real/unreal subject, and then the supposed antagonism between the two, a bit off course, to say the least. I mean, the process of cognition works as it does, and well, that's how things are. There's a sense-door process, and then a mind-door process, and then more mind-door process, with objects that change from dhamma, to nimitta of a dhamma, to nimitta of a concept. And that's it. Which component in all this is real and which is unreal? The argument doesn't really apply at all I'd say. > > > RE: As for the unseen view of dhammas, it's true isn't it? If you haven't experienced it directly or at least through a convincing enough nimitta that you know that you are tracking the true reality of momentary dhammas, then it is still a theory, no matter how fully you may think it is correct. So it is believed in, but the dhammas are still unseen. If that is the case, it's a matter of being convinced logically and having faith in that teaching, but it is still not known directly. > > pt: If, ok. > > > RE: We do know directly, for what it's worth, the experience of drinking a glass of water. > > pt: You are serious here? > > > RE: We can say it's conceptual and that it's not the true reality we experience, but we don't actually know that. Again, it's a matter of faith and belief that this is the case, and that is a conceptual understanding. > > pt: And here? > > > RE: So where's the straw man? > > pt: I hope I addressed that way up above. > > > > > > RE: When the mundane path is applied to everyday life as it is known and lived, and at the same time contemplation is given to the units of experience and how they arise from moment to moment, this gives a healthy balance and a healthy path. But dismissing everyday experience in favor of 'right concepts' does not seem healthy to me. > > > > > > pt: Strawman. > > > > RE: Well you say that summarily, but I don't mean it as a strawman. > > pt: Well, basically, what you said comes across as if I said that everyday experience should be dismissed in favor of "right concepts". I didn't, and the statement on its own merits is dubious. > > > RE: I have been told many times that having the right conceptual understanding of realities, eg, pariyatti, is the prerequisite and also the means by which direct understanding develops, but that it will not develop to that point possibly for many lifetimes. So one is trusting and believing that this is the right path, but meanwhile the experiences of life are seen as concepts instead of being taken as actual existing objects of experience. > > pt: This last bit "meanwhile the experiences of life are seen as concepts" is speculation on your behalf, and possibly a result of not really understanding what pariyatti is. I'm not saying I understand it that great either, but for me, what you said has little to do with pariyatti. > > > RE: That is the truth. So it's not a strawman to me. If you think my view is incorrect, that is fine with me. Discuss it on the merits, but dismissing it as a kind of "ruse," eg, strawman, does not deal with it very well. It's not meant that way. > > pt: I think I explained that "strawman" refers to putting things into my mouth that I haven't said and then refuting them. In essence then you are having an argument with yourself, not with me. > > > > > > pt: Second, how is that truth described? Imo, by pointing out dhammas and their characteristics - anatta, etc. > > > > > > > > > > So, i guess my point is that samsara will not stop no matter how well you use your knives and forks. Neither will samsara stop if you stop using your knives and forks completely. Neither will it stop if you try to see the anatta nature of knives and forks. Etc. Samsara will only stop once anatta nature of feeling and other khandas is seen. Feeling and other khandas are dhammas. > > > > > > > RE: I don't agree with this absolute distinction, which is quite polarized between everyday experiences and dhammas, > > > > > > pt: Strawman. > > > > > > > RE: nor the distinction between knives and forks - everyday activities - and feelings. > > > > > > pt: Strawman. > > > > RE: These "strawman" references may be satisfying for you, but they're not going to lead to greater understanding, at least on my part. > > pt: Alright, for purposes of diplomacy, where did I say that everyday experiences and dhammas are polarised. Dhammas are everyday expereinces. As are concepts. Again, that's how process of cognition works. There's no polarisation. Same for knives and forks, acitivities and feelings. I don't think I said any of it. What I said was: "Samsara will only stop once anatta nature of feeling and other khandas is seen. Feeling and other khandas are dhammas." > > To express it differently in terms of the process of cognition, if panna is present during javana processes of the sense-door process and mind-door process that take a dhamma as object, that'd be path moments that lead to the end of samsara (eventually). If panna is present during mind-door processes that take concepts as objects, that would still be kusala moments, which might at some point condition the arising of panna in the previous two kinds of processes, but these wouldn't be classified as path moments I think. > > > RE: I mean what I say as serious statements. I'm sorry you see them as setups or false distinctions, because I really mean them as statements of what I see and understand in the philosophy under discussion. If you want to explain how they are incorrect distinctions, feel free; otherwise, I get it - you think they are strawmen but I don't agree. > > pt: I hope I explained the strawman issue above. > > ... > > > RE: Well I'm no master of the lingo, so I'm just saying what I think as best I can. Ken O. has recently stated that a conventional object, a concept, can be the object of mundane insight. There is some dispute on this subject, but I'm not technically sharp enough to understand it on that level. This makes sense to me but I can't really argue it out on a technical level. > > pt: Let's drop it then. KenO needs to figure this one out with Sarah and others. > > > > > RE: But to intellectually map a degree of microscopic namas and rupas that are not really experienced just provides an intellectual overlay. > > > > > > pt: Strawman. > > > > RE: Yeah, I was guessing that's what you would say. Whenever I describe the single citta nama-rupa universe as "not really experienced" you say it is a strawman. > > pt: Strawman referred to my alleged advocating "to intellectually map a degree of microscopic namas and rupas", which of course is absurd, while the statement by itself is nonsensical. Again, remember the purpose of Dhamma, so when someone says "citta arises with dosa" for example, it's not to describe the universe like science does, but simply to encourage understanding of the truth, closer and closer. For example, next time you get angry at Mr.X for doing Y, your attention will not be stuck for half an hour on the story why you're angry at him while just getting more angry, but instead, perception might recall the citta arising with dosa and attention will then turn to anger (dosa) itself and panna will see it as the actual problem in the whole situation. That'd be beginnings of pariyatti I think. Then some other time when Mr.Z says something and you get angry, attention might jump straight to the anger and panna will recognise it as akusala and won't even bother with the whole story of Mr.Z and his bad way with words. That'd be beginnings of patipatti I think. And then at some opportune point later, attention might jump to anger and see it as anatta. And so on, closer and closer to the truth. > > > RE: Well, sorry, pt, but it's not actually experienced by anyone around here, so it's not a strawman, it's reality. That doesn't make that philosophy incorrect or untrue, but it doesn't make it correct or true either. > > pt: So when you are angry, isn't there dosa? Slowly we learn to see it more and more closer, as encouraged by the statements like "citta arises with dosa", so, minus the story about who said what, minus the "I don't like anger", minus the "my" anger, etc. It just gets to be seen more and more clearly, so firstly less and less like a rationalisation, then less and less like a concept of a dhamma, and then more and more as direct experience that is anatta. > > > RE: So go ahead, keep saying "strawman" as much as you like. It's not a substitute for discussing these statements on the merits. I understand if that doesn't seem worth your time, since you disagree with them, but that's up to you. > > pt: I hope you understand my strawman objections so far. I appreciate the ability to restate someone's statement for purposes of checking your own understanding, but if unclear, then the logical step is to ask for clarification, rather than assume something else and then refute it, thus producing a strawman. > > > > > RE: I think it's better to be aware of the namarupa nature of what arises without worrying about whether it is conventional or paramatha and see the characteristics, the attachments, the feelings that attend it, rather than intellectualize it. > > > > > > pt: You are a master strawman maker. > > > > RE: Well one thing is clear, you are master at saying "strawman," for what it's worth. I don't think it's a strawman, but without a more substantive exchange, it's hard to say much about it one way or the other. Hope you're having fun. > > pt: Strawman referred to my alleged advocating of intellectualizing it. Basically, I don't differ too much from your statement now: "I think it's better to be aware of the namarupa nature of what arises without worrying about whether it is conventional or paramatha and see the characteristics, the attachments, the feelings that attend it" > > > > > > > pt: So i guess another point that has to be made is that there's nothing wrong with concepts. They are very useful in sustaining life. But sustaining life is not the same as ending samsara. > > > > > > > > RE: I don't think that's really the question. It is whether what you are calling concepts can be objects of awareness. The philosophy that is often subscribed to on dsg says 'no,' but that is a kind of intellectualism as well. > > > > > > pt: Master of masters in fact. > > > > Maybe. Or maybe you just don't like what I'm saying and don't want to think about it. > > pt: Strawman refers to the statement "It is whether what you are calling concepts can be objects of awareness. The philosophy that is often subscribed to on dsg says 'no,'". I don't think that's right at all. See the recent thread on abstention for example. > > ... > > RE: I was saying that you see a person and of course you apprehend them as such - this is Rob E. who is a master strawman-maker. But according to dhamma theory Rob e. does not exist as a person as such - that is understood to be a concept. So you are at odds with your own natural perception. You see Rob E, but you think that seeing is just a conceptual construction. It takes an act of intellect to overrule your natural perception of Rob E., master strawman-maker, and to say to yourself, "He is just a concept." That is what I mean by an intellectual overlay. I hope that's more clear. > > pt: Sure, but that's pure speculation which has little to do with how things really happen. The purpose of saying things like "a person is a concept, while thinking about the person is a dhamma" for example, is again to encourage direct understanding. E.g. perhaps next time I see RobE and start getting annoyed with his long posts, my attention will be encouraged to be drawn away from the whole story and will just notice thinking itself. No more story. And then at some later point thinking might be recognised as anatta. And annoyance and anger won't even enter into equation anymore. Hence akusala tendencies are getting diminished. (Simplified example, but I hope you see what I'm getting at?) However, if nobody told me that thinking is a dhamma (something that can be known), I'd still be stuck in the story about RobE and his long posts and get all annoyed about it. > > > > > pt: Anyway, then below it seems you are having a discussion with your dsg alter-ego, so it seems pointless to intrude on the dialogue other than to indicate portions which might be discussed later: > > > > RE: Yes, dsg has given me a kind of schizophrenia. I apologize for talking to myself in the middle of my post to you, or whatever. > > pt: Well, my statement referred to your arguing against points that I never raised, nor necessarily disagreed with. So I couldn't see what was it other than talking to yourself. Which is alright, we all sometimes need to put our thought on paper to help us make sense of them... Though you really have a lot of them. > > > RE: Yeah, well I really wasn't talking to myself, pt. I was discussing the difference between what is actually experienced and what one "thinks" is being experienced. And "you" was meant to stand in for "one," anyone, even me, master strawman-maker, or you, adherent to dhamma theory, or whoever. All the above was a further extrapolation of what I said earlier and the same explanation can be used, so I'll repeat it, hopefully handling all your question marks at once: > > > "I was saying that you see a person and of course you apprehend them as such - this is Rob E. who is a master strawman-maker. But according to dhamma theory Rob e. does not exist as a person as such - that is understood to be a concept. So you are at odds with your own natural perception. You see Rob E, but you think that seeing is just a conceptual construction. It takes an act of intellect to overrule your natural perception of Rob E., master strawman-maker, and to say to yourself, "He is just a concept." That is what I mean by an intellectual overlay. I hope that's more clear." > > > > So I hope that's more clear as to what I am asserting, notwithstanding the fact that you may fervently disagree with it. > > pt: I hope I explained above in the example on thinking what you are missing. > > > > > RE: So it comes down to what is the role of pariyatti? I think it's introductory, to understand what the nature of the description is, > > > > > > pt: I think pariyatti goes a lot deeper. It's far from being just theoretical/intellectual knowledge alike to memorizing a shopping list for example. > > > > Now THAT's a strawman! I never said that the value of pariyatti is memorizing a conceptual shopping list. > > pt: Yes, quite possibly a strawman, but only in a very narrow context of the above statement. If we are more observant though, you have often mentioned "intellectual" in some permutation in connection with pariyatti, which generally implies something devoid of direct experince. As in below (notice the "not in fact actually experienced"): > > > RE: I simply said that in truth it is an intellectual understanding of realities according to a very sophisticated specific philosophy that breaks realities down into very definite units, and that this very specific breakdown is not in fact actually experienced. It is known about intellectually. Is anything in the above untrue about the basic setup of pariyatti? > > pt: Yes, I think it's quite untrue, as I hope I explained a long while above, because pariayatti includes the (kusala moments) of what you called daily experiences and meditation. Thus, basically, you have essentially equated pariyatti to memorizing a shopping list when you divorced it from direct experience. Imo, of course. > > > > RE: Welcome to the strawman-making club. I see you have some natural talent in this area as well. > > pt: Thanks, though examine the pariyatti issue a bit closer if possible. > > > > In mystical lingo, I guess pariyatti would be the next best thing to experiencing dhammas directly. In abhdihamma lingo, I think pariyatti would be mind-door processes that take concepts of dhammas as objects. > > > > Right, so like I said, it's a conceptual path. And it believes in the importance of "right concept" over what it regards as "wrong experience." That is true - it's not a strawman. > > pt: Strawman aside, what the hell is a "right concept" and "wrong experience"? > > > > pt: So this would be arising I think just as the concepts of "knives and forks" are being created in the mind-door processes that closely follow the mind-door processes that have nimitta of dhamma as object. In mystical lingo that's be seeing the actual "thinking" rather than seeing "knives and forks", I guess. I'm note very good anymore with that lingo. > > > RE: Calling such descriptions mystical lingo is itself mystical lingo, just another kind. > > pt: "Mystical lingo" wasn't a derogatory term, just to indicate that it's not abhidhamma lingo, so relies on expressions that have different connotations than (often) the same abhidhamma terms. Meditators generally use that lingo, but since spending less time on such online boards, I've forgotten the specific connotations that the terms have. > > So, I'll try once again - if attention is on "knives and forks" then attention is not on thinking itself. Right? Further, while attention is on thinking, thinking can be recognised as anatta - something that arises in a conditioned way and isn't self. However, while the attention is on "knives and forks", there's no basis for the recognition of anatta and conditioned nature. You can think of what knives and forks are made of, what are they used for, etc, but usually there's no room for reflection on anatta, because, well, knives and forks are not habits and tendencies that can belong to a self. > > > > > > RE: but then one has to let that go and experience the real feeling and sight and smell of what exists, not keep thinking one's way through experience. > > > > > > pt: Assuming one could actually choose to do either, and moreover do so with a kusala citta... > > > > RE: We might have different assumptions about that possibility. > > pt: ok > > > > > > > pt: Further, there's no antagonism between concepts and dhammas. They are both essential part of the process of cognition. Hence why the only way for us to actually learn Dhamma is thanks to concepts. But when it comes to ending samsara, it will only happen when dhammas are understood. In practice, or insight in other words. > > > > > > > > RE: What will cause insight to come? What kind of practice? > > > > > > pt: I believe you discussed this with Jon many times. Hearing, considering, etc. Imo, in abhidhamma lingo, if citta is kusala, and sati and panna arise together with it (regardless of whether the object is a concept or a dhamma), that's practice/development/bhavana/meditation. But this is a post-facto statement. While it's happening, nothing I can do or not do. In fact, the whole premise of practice is misleading, because it takes away from anatta. > > > > RE: That is a specific dogma of the shared philosophy that you, Jon and others have on dsg. It is not an established truth. > > pt: Which is why there was "Imo" initially. > > > > > > RE: I think that the practice that causes awareness and understanding to develop is more experience-oriented and less intellectual. The intellect should be applied to experience in order feel, taste and smell the reality that is spoken of. > > > > > > pt: Back to strawmen eh? > > > > RE: No it's not a strawman. > > pt: :) Of course it is. You're essentially saying that I'm advocating a more intellectual and a less experience-oriented practice. I'm not, and I'd say something entirely different, if asked about practice. > > > RE: It's a comparison of study without additional practice as you just advocated above, versus purposeful practice as others here think is correct practice and which has been disputed many times in this group, and which you just dismissed above. > > pt: Which of course is another strawman. I hope I explained that the antagonism you see between the two, as well as the very existence of the two practices, is wrong. > > > RE: You actually assert what I am describing and then call it a strawman two seconds later. Not a strawman, but an actual dividing line. > > pt: I hope it's clear that the dividing line is in your head only. > > > RE: Why do you think that every characterization of dhamma philosophy I make is a strawman? I'd like to see you give the alternative rendering of what is wrong with my statement that would not be a strawman. Show me where I'm wrong according to you, instead of saying strawman over and over again. > > pt: I hope I did so far, if not, ask for more clarification. > > ... > > > > > > pt: So, as an example, that would mean that anatta nature of thinking (dhamma) about knives and forks is understood amidst the actual thinking about knives and forks. Or that concentration (dhamma) on a knife or a fork is anatta. Or that perception (dhamma) of a knife or a fork is anatta. Etc. > > > > > > > RE: Such realization would indeed be valuable. And pariyatti takes that part of the way. But the immersion in life and practice with the Dhamma as guide is what gives real flesh to this endeavor and causes real experiences to come to light. > > > > > > pt: As mentioned, not good with mystical lingo anymore. "immersion in life, flesh, endeavour". I have no idea what all that means. > > > > RE: Well I'm sorry that I can't say anything that is not in dhamma theory lingo without you seeing it as incomprehensible mystical lingo. I am saying that 'real life' is the field of the Dhamma. Hope that's more clear. In case it's not, I think the Dhamma should be realized when having a real conversation with your mother or significant other, or the testy guy on the bus, and that is has to do more with the reactions and perceptions of daily life than what we read in the commentaries. > > pt: Again, imo, the antagonism between daily life and commentaries is in your head. I wouldn't say commentaries have anything against realising dhamma while you're talking to people. > > > > > > > pt: However, if we are just stuck thinking about whether knives and forks are exist or not, is this not just philosophying on a conceptual level (so no actual insight, towards which conceptual understanding of Dhamma should stear us)? Furthermore, is this not attanuditthi?! In other words, it's not just that we are missing the point of Dhamma, but we are actually engaging in wrong view?! > > > > > > > > RE: The question is whether that is not already taking place, whether the assertion that dhammas alone are real and that concepts cannot be the object of awareness is inherently denying the existence of knives and forks. > > > > > > pt: Strawoman, see above. > > > > RE: I think you're missing the main points of this discussion by doing that. Why not take a look at what I am saying before you jump up and label it as basically being nonsense. > > pt: Strawman refers to the alleged assertion that concepts cannot be the object of awareness. In abhidhamma lingo, the statement would read smth like - panna cannot arise with citta that has a concept as object. I don't think that's a correct statement, and I don't think anyone ever said that here (other than KenH maybe, and KenO claiming Sarah said it, while she actually didn't). Again see the few recent threads that discuss this same issue, and I think the conclusion is usually the opposite. > > > RE: You haven't answered any of these assertions that are all saying that dhamma theory is a conceptual approach to reality, and that it thus dismisses what we natively experience in life. > > pt: I hope I addressed this above, i.e. that your assumption is wrong. > > > RE: That is a real object of discussion, not a strawman, and you are missing that discussion in order to glibly label everything I say. I think it's pretty damn defensive, pt. I am challenging the dhamma philosophy, but I'm not doing it off the cuff, and I think your reaction shows that you are probably not making much contact with what I'm saying. It may be that what I'm saying is ridiculous nonsense and not worth your time, but if you're going to bother to respond to it, you may as well think about what I'm asserting and say something back. > > pt: I think I called every strawman correctly so far, no? Though I was hoping not to have to spend another 4 hours on explaining why those were strawmen, i.e. was hoping you'd consider it yourself maybe. > > > > > > RE: It is my view that Right View is not to deny physical or conventional existence, but to see that it has both a conventional and expanded aspect that can be understood, and that both are part of its actuality, to be further understood and detached from. > > > > > > pt: Taking your words on their best merit, I'd agree, though I can't be sure what you mean by "both a conventional and expanded aspect that can be understood, and that both are part of its actuality,". I'm hoping what you're saying is the same as the cognition process I outlined above according to ACMA. > > > > RE: I am including what folks here call "concepts" as part of the path. > > pt: I have no problem with that, as long as it is not classified as path moment. > > Best wishes > pt > #116942 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! kenhowardau Hi Sarah, ------ <. . .> > S: There are different kinds/levels of virati, but when it (right speech/action/livelihood) arises as a path factor with the other path factors, it must have the same object, a dhamma. Likewise, when the virati factors arise with the lokuttara magga citta, the object must be nibbana. ------ KH: Thanks for the clarification. I can easily see how virati could experience a dhamma. After all, virati is restraint from wrong speech; it is not actual speech. So there is no question of anyone talking to a dhamma. ----------------- <. . .> >> KH: So how does it work? How can we have a concept of something without believing it really exists (or without excluding the possibility that something very different really does exist)? .... S: Like now, we think about chairs and computers and people with kusala and akusala cittas. Even when there are akusala cittas, usually they are just with ignorance and attachment, not wrong view. When there is metta, dana or sila and there is concern for the others' welfare, that's all. There's no idea of anyone or anything existing. Even the Buddha thought about forests and postures, people and animals, but again, the concepts are just the object of kusala cittas. ----------------- KH: Yes, that's what *I* am trying to say. :-) When there is either kusala or viriya consciousness of a concept, what exactly is that concept? I am suggesting (without strong conviction) that it is a concept of a symbol, or of a figure of speech or conventional designation, or something like that. When the citta is kusala then, for that moment at least, there is no concept of icca sukkah, or atta. So what I am trying to say (hypothesise) is there is not only no belief (no ditthi) in those characteristics: there is no concept of them either. ---------------------------- <. . .> KH: It works by having a concept of a paramattha dhamma! >> > S: Only if they've heard the Buddha's Teachings and there is a beginning of pariyatti. Otherwise, not. Even for us and the Buddha and his disciples, at moments of dana and metta and non-path sila, concepts are the object, even though we know that in reality, there are only namas and rupas. --------------------------- KH: But don't all thinking people have concepts of a higher reality? Even without having heard any form of Buddhism (let alone the true Dhamma) don't people of all philosophical persuasions sometimes try to see through the veil of conventional reality into something ultimately real? Isn't that what popular meditation is designed to do? -------------------------------------- >> KH: Even in mildly akusala cittas (when there is ignorance without wrong view) our concepts of sentient beings are not concepts of sukkha, icca and atta, are they? There is at those times an unspoken recognition that we are talking about fleeting, changeable states of consciousness. >> > S: At those moments of ignorance without wrong view, there is no wrong idea of dhammas as sukkha, icca or atta, but neither is there any right idea of them as dukkha, anicca or anatta. --------------------------------------- KH: Take, for example, the mildly akusala thoughts that commonly arise during Dhamma discussion. Isn't there, at those (akusala) times, an idea of something anicca, dukkha and anatta? ----------------------- > S: However, at those moments of ignorance (without wrong view) there is still sanna vipallasa and citta vipallasa arising perceiving the dukkha as sukkha and the asubha as subha. (These are only eradicated by the arahant and anagami respectively). There is sanna vipallasa arising with all akusala cittas. ---------------------- KH: Oh, well that explains it! :-)I didn't know that! So let's forget my theory where it applied to mildly akusala cittas. What about where it applies to ordinary kusala cittas? ---------------------------------------------- >> KH: So when you tell an ordinary person that rites and rituals (the physical action of giving a gift, for example) are ultimately ineffectual he knows what you mean. He knows there are ultimately fleeting states of consciousness, he knows it is virtually impossible to tell anyone's real state of consciousness at any given time, and he knows it is impossible to create generosity (etc) by ritual activity. >> > S: I wouldn't define "the physical action of giving a gift" as being a rite and ritual. Rites and rituals depend on the the citta with wrong view which motivates a deed. ---------------------------------------- KH: Hmmm, that seems like a grey area to me. I tend to equate all belief in the efficacy of concepts with belief in rite and ritual. But I've been wrong before! :-) ---------------------- >> KH: So I think it is very common for people to have concepts of another, greater, reality. Even if they don't know they are having them. >> > S: Just thinking about states of consciousness, generosity, motives and so on,nothing to do with understanding dhammas as anatta, though. -------------------- KH: I agree. If uninstructed people think in any detail about ultimate reality they are sure to end up with an atta view of one kind or another. But what about the not-thought-out concepts that occur with ordinary dana and sila: couldn't they be of some kind of ultimate (albeit unknown) fleeting reality? Anyway, that might be just idle speculation on my part, but this next part is more important: -------------- >>> S: Ken, remember panna arises in the development of samatha and the development of pariyatti/patipatti. >>> So, now, if there is wise reflection on abstaining from harming beings, for example, it is samatha with panna. The object is a concept. All kinds of samatha bhavana up to jhana cittas develop with panna. Concepts are nearly always the objects. --------------- KH: In that example, is the citta that contains samatha-panna the exact same citta that has a concept of a living being? Or does panna arise in another citta with an altogether different object? I have been under the impression (based on earlier DSG discussions) that samatha-panna would *always* have either a dhamma, or a concept of a dhamma, as its object. That was based on the fact that samatha-panna knew kusala from akusala, and only dhammas were kusala and akusala (concepts weren't anything). Ken H #116943 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:41 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (116786) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > Thanks, Jon. I would not think you were making it up, however, it of course clarifies things to see where a view actually appears, as opposed to being some sort of conglomerate of an interpretation of the entire Tipitaka. When one says that this is "orthodox" and that it is a result of the "entire Tipitaka including commentaries..." I think that in a sense obscures the actuality of where this view comes from, and likewise obscures how universal it is, or whether it is indeed the logical conclusion of the entirety of the Tipitaka, which it is not. > =============== > > J: It is not a matter of whether an interpretation is a 'logical conclusion', but whether it is fully consistent with both the suttas and the Abhidhamma. I think there is a problem there, because I have found a number of inconsistencies in my limited experience with the commentaries between their interpretation and the obvious meaning of the suttas. Your solution to such seeming inconsistencies appears to be to grant interpretive power to the commentaries and give them the benefit of the doubt that their interpretation is the correct one, even when they seem to either go directly against what the sutta says, or to veer away from the subject matter of the sutta and say it was about something else. The Abhidhamma and the sutta pitaka also do not seem fully consistent, again from my limited exposure, either in emphasis or in some ways in the substance of what they say. When the Buddha says "strive with all your might" or something to that effect, your view of the Abhidhamma's standpoint on this is to say that it does not really mean that, but rather means to attend the arising of momentary dhammas, and that volition is an arising dhamma not something to be exercised as the Buddha's words would seem to indicate. So, in my view, it seems to often be a *choice* between the sutta's way of speaking of the path and the Abhidhamma & commentaries way of speaking of the path, rather than some form of overall consistency between the two. It seems probable to me that you have chosen the commentarial view of the suttas and thus read the suttas in that light, and that is what you may mean by "the whole of the tipitaka." > =============== > > [RE:] Buddha, as I suspected, never gave any pronouncement of the eight-fold path existing as a momentary occurrence of a short series of cittas and accompanying cetasikas, and never implied that this was the case. The idea that the path consists of a culmination of brief experienced moments is a grand departure, in my opinion, not an interpretation of, the way in which Buddha defined the Noble Eight-fold Path. This view only appears in commentary and/or sub-commentary, and cannot be derived from any other source in the Tipitaka, in my understanding, limited though it may be. It is not in sutta, it is not in Visudhimagga, and I am fairly certain - though not totally certain by any means - that it does not appear in the body of the Abhidhamma itself, which would lead it to be a very restricted interpretation of the Tipitaka, and not "orthodox" in the sense of being ubiquitous within the scriptures or universally understood and accepted by the tradition of serious adherents and practitioners of Buddhism, which is the only meaningful use of the word "orthodox." > =============== > > J: As far as I know, the interpretation we are discussing was in fact the generally accepted and understood interpretation of the teachings within the Theravada community from the time of the Buddha until some time after the Abhidhammatta Sangaha. I would be very interested to know what "as far as I know" is based on here. Not meaning any disrespect to you, but it doesn't give me any reassurance that this was the view without some understanding of what this is based on. What scriptures or writings give the information that this was the generally accepted view of the Dhamma, and if so, why does the Buddha talk in such different terms than the "generally accepted view?" You would think that he would speak to that view and express that view if that were the case. As far as I can tell by looking at examples of the actual writings as they are presented to me here and elsewhere, they express two different views of the path, one in which the Buddha says to "strive" and exercise volition in a purposeful way, and in which the Buddha describes in enthusiastic detail how to develop jhana and mindfulness through concerted effort and practice, and another view that is completely divorced from that language, and which describes a single-citta universe in which the path happens by itself. I don't see anything much in common between those two views of the path, other than the fact that they share the same important units of experience. But their view of volition and practice is completely different. > As regards references in the Tipitaka, I recently came across the following notes (although I don't have a copy of the Vibhanga with me to check): > > ********************************** > SUMMARY FROM VIBHANGA > Ch 4 Analysis Of Truth > Summary from par. 206 > - Right view is wisdom, understanding > - right thought is mentation, thinking > - right speech, action and livelihood are avoiding etc. the 4 verbal wrong actions, 3 wrong bodily actions and wrong livelihood respectively > - right effort is the arousing of mental energy > - right mindfulness is mindfulness > - right concentration is stability of consciousness, steadfastness Of course none of the above is wrong, but the Abhidhamma seems to purposely leave out all of the path elements that would take place "in the world" rather than in the mind. Buddha spoke of Right Concentration directly as the development of jhana - there is no doubt that he did, as he states it as a truism in sutta. To leave that out of the list and instead to say that it is 'stability of consciousness" which is a much more general category shows a concerted effort to strip the sutta message of its practical application and to turn it into a general mental principle, as is the general tendency in the commentaries and I guess parts of the Abhidhamma itself. This denudes the Buddha's message of its worldly aspect, but there is no doubt that it is there for anyone to read in sutta. So I conclude that there is a conscious effort throughout aspects of the Abhidhamma and certainly in parts of the commentarial body, to turn the path into a purely mental endeavor that arises spontaneously, but this does not represent the full original method of the Buddha. It is a transformation of the Theravadin view of the path, and in that sense, again, is not traditional. > Summary from par. 217-218 > The truth of the path-- > - has immeasurable object > - has path as its cause > - has external object > - is mental concomitants > - accompanies consciousness > - tends to release > ********************************** > > As regards references in the Visuddhimagga, there is the following Ch. XVI in the section dealing with the NEP as the 4th Noble Truth: > > ********************************** > "75. In the description of the way leading to the cessation of suffering eight things are given. Though they have, of course, already been explained as to meaning in the Description of the Aggregates [J: The section dealing with the Aggregates gives a description of each of the metnal factors individually], still we shall deal with them here in order to remain aware of the difference between them when they occur in a single moment on the occasion of the path. > > [J: Then follows a description of each of the 8 path factors, starting with right view:] > > "76. Briefly, when a meditator is progressing towards the penetration of the four truths, his eye of understanding with nibbana as its object eliminates the inherent tendency to ignorance, and that is right view. It has right seeing as its characteristic. Its function is to reveal elements. It is manifested as the abolition of the darkness of ignorance. ... I wonder what you make of the use of the word "meditator" in the above, implying that he who is able to achieve understanding with nibbana as object has been *meditating* to reach that attainment? > [J: Jumping now to factors 6 to 8 (right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration):] > > "81. When he is established on that plane of virtue called right speech, right action, and right livelihood, his energy, which is in conformity and associated with that right view, cuts off idleness, and that is called right effort. It has the characteristic of exerting. Its function is the non-arousing of unprofitable things, and so on. It is manifested as the abandoning of wrong effort." Right Effort does not just involve the cutting off or abandonment of wrong effort, but also cultivation and preservation of positive skillful states, and Buddha speaks of this in the imperative:\ "[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." He goes on more clearly in the imperative: ""Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" How many times does the Buddha have to speak in the positive imperative mode to make it clear that he wants us to exert effort and persistence to purposively develop these qualities? > "82. When he exerts himself thus, the non-forgetfulness in his mind, which is associated with that right view, shakes off wrong mindfulness, and that is called right mindfulness. It has the characteristic of establishing. Its function is not to forget. It is manifested as the abandoning of wrong mindfulness. This emphasis on abandoning akusala being the equivalent of developing kusala, which seems to take volition almost all the way out of the picture except as another arising factor, only represents half of Buddha's admonitions on the path factors. He also says to directly strive to develop the positive path factors, and not only to abandon the negative factors, so I think we see here in the Vism as well as in commentary, the re-emphasizing of one side of the path as espoused by the Buddha in order to skew it towards a more passively arising philosophy, in which negative factors are recognized and abandoned, and that's it - no positive volitional develpment, but that is skewed, and does not represent the other more active side of the Buddha's clear teaching in the suttas. It takes the path towards a more intellectual aim, which suits the bent of the later commentators. > "83. When his mind is thus guarded by supreme mindfulness, the unification of mind, which is associated with that right view, abolishes wrong concentration, and that is called right concentration. It has the characteristic of non-distraction. Its function is to concentrate. It is manifested as the abandoning of wrong concentration." > ********************************** > > The above seems to be a description of mental factors. Certainly Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration are mental factors, and not part of baling hay or socializing with relatives. But they are the fruits of practice in the Buddha's speech and thus have an active element of practice in-the-world, which these descriptions leave out. When it comes to Right Action and Right Livelihood, which are not as obviously mental factors, though of course mental factors and states are always involved, it would be interesting to see how they are described. > =============== > > [RE:] That is why it think it is very useful to identify the actual sources of our views. Rather than saying that such a view is orthodox, which somewhat optimistically universalizes it beyond its actual scope for the sake of those who adopt such a view, it would be much more precise and correct to say that it is a "commentarial" view, as many of such view are, and that those who hold such a view are "commentary-based" in their views, and that those who hold such a view could very well be called the "Commentarialist" wing of the Theravadin tradition. > =============== > > J: To my understanding, the commentaries are an intrinsic part of the Theravadin tradition, so much so that in fact it is the authors of the commentaries who are the 'Theras' from which the tradition takes its name. Well if the commentaries are written by the very Theras after whom the Theravadin tradition is named, then we are left with the question of what their relationship is to the original teachings of the Buddha, and that is certainly a useful, dynamic question which I'm sure has quite a bit of complexity in the answer. Where the views of the Theras seem to develop the Buddha's teachings in a particular direction, it is useful to ask what direction they are taking it in, and what relation that has to the Buddha's original teachings. And that would be a useful basis on which to compare the Buddha's teachings in sutta and the views of the commentaries, as they do not always match up very directly, and the Theras seem to have emphasized the internal, passive, arising nature of specific dhammas in a way that Buddha himself did not. Therefore, rather than seeing the Theravadin tradition as a conglomerated whole with the commentaries giving the final word on what the suttas really mean, I think it is useful to see how the two groups of scriptures reconcile, rather than assuming that they do. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #116944 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:07 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (116788) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > [RE:] I agree that the mundane jhanas without corresponding insight development would only suppress defilements and lead to continued rebirth. ... > > > > Buddha's use of jhana as a pathway to enlightenment does not resemble its use by those who did not understanding satipatthana. On this, I think we can all agree. > =============== > > J: Not so fast :-)). Uh oh, am I in trouble? I think I generally am... > The pathway to enlightenment is insight/vipassana. For those who have developed jhana, that pathway may include insight with jhana consciousness as object. > > But jhana consciousness (a very high degree of kusala absorption on the subject of contemplation) is the same for all regardless of the extent if any to which insight/vipassana may also have been developed. > > When insight is developed and is able to take the jhana consciousness as object, that is not a 'use' of jhana any more than there is a 'use' of, say, sound or hearing consciousness when that dhamma is object of insight. Well I think this is a very strong abnegation of the emphasis that Buddha placed on jhana as the vehicle for the path, and as a very special object for the development of insight. Even the dry-insight community acknowledges that enlightenment obtained with jhana is deeper and has greater attributes than that obtained without jhana. To say that jhana is just an object among any other objects of insight and that the insight is the same whether it is the high attainment of the formless states or a glass of water really seems to ignore an awful lot of what the Buddha taught. I realize and agree that in theory it is the insight that counts and that insight can develop in relation to a chipmunk or a subway car, and ultimately insight and the enlightened understanding will apply to any and every human experience, but that does not mean, nor do I think that it's the case, that every object along the path is an equal gateway to the development of insight. Buddha does not say that "if one happens to be in jhana, please use it as an object of insight so that insight will develop." Rather he spells out in great detail how the jhanas set the stage for a very conducive way of developing insight and sustaining it in a sustained concentrated state. In addition, Buddha teaches the repeated use of mindfulness towards the jhanas in each stage of the development of jhana and the insight that can be gained from this operation. It is a systematic repeated operation that leads inevitably to enlightenment if followed according to the Buddha's instructions for going into the jhana, then when freshly out of the sustained jhana, turning the consciousness back onto the subtle state of that jhana in order to understand it with insight and thus develop stronger insight. It's not a happenstantial relation between the jhana and the insight. It is a development regimen taught by the Buddha as *the* primary path to enlightenment. This procedure of going from one jhana to the next while using each one as the stepping-stone to further development of insight, then on to the next, as specifically described by the Buddha, bears no relation to the way in which jhana was developed prior to the appearance of the Buddha in the world. in the Hindu, yogic version of jhana, the object is merely to get deeper and deeper into the concentrated peaceful state, removed from the world. The continuous ability that the Buddha taught development of, to navigate in and out of each jhana to practice insight upon it, while then still being able to move towards the next deeper jhana, necessitates a degree of flexible concentration combined with mindfulness that is much, much more refined and skillful than the previous version. It is *not* the same any more than a fish is the same as a monkey, evolutionarily speaking. :-) In addition, I believe that the Buddha taught that mindfulness should be maintained *while* within the jhana, so that the concentrated state was also much more aware of the object of the jhana than it would have been in the yogic version. So, as we say in Brooklyn, "it ain't the same." > =============== > [RE:] However, I think it is very clear that Buddha meant jhana to be employed in conjunction with satipatthana, and did not promote the use of one part of the path without the other, but both developed together to form the full path. > =============== > > J: There are numerous instances in the suttas of persons attaining enlightenment with no reference to the prior attainment of jhana and in circumstances where it would seem that prior jhana played no role. I think those are either exceptions, which of course I will acknowledge for those with extremely sharp propensity for insight, or else was taken as a given that jhana had been developed in present or past lives. There is no doubt that *some* highly developed minds could follow the path of insight, and had the propensity to develop enough inner concentration, to carry the mind to full enlightenment without extensive development of jhana. But I think those minds would be highly sharp and rather rare, and did not represent the path as a whole, judging by the extent to which the Buddha described the path of jhana + insight at length and clearly stated that "Right Concentration *is* jhana." You do acknowledge that he said that, yes? > =============== > > [RE:] Can dry insight develop the full path, with jhana factors occurring as part of the fulfillment of the path at the end of high insight attainment? I am not sure, but I am fairly certain that such a pathway was not set out by the Buddha, taking into account those notable exceptions. Any contrary quotes that are not from commentary? > =============== > > J: As just mentioned, a requirement for prior attainment of jhana would not be consistent with the descriptions of attainment of enlightenment found in many suttas. See above. > But in any event, since you acknowledge there are exceptions, I'm not sure in what sense it can be said that jhana is part of the path. Exceptions do not define the rule, by definition. If one or two fish can survive on land, that does not make all fish = monkeys. > We all agree, I think, that there can at least be the beginning of the development of insight without prior jhana, so unless there is a point at which that development can no longer continue, the question of having to attain jhana does not arise. I think that's a pretty big overgeneralization of a general rule from a few exceptions. In terms of insight developing without jhana, of course it can up to a certain point, but I think that Buddha made clear that jhana is the vehicle for the development of deeper insight. Can full insight leading to enlightenment be developed without a decent amount of samatha, access concentration or jhana? I don't know what extent of samatha/jhana is an absolute prerequisite, but I do know that the Buddha fully emphasized the development of jhana in his description of the path to enlightenment and that either jhana or the equivalent is likely a necessity before full insight can be attained. To dismiss this out of hand, or to go so far as to state that jhana is not part of the path, knowing that Buddha said that "Right Concentration is jhana" directly in sutta, seems pretty bold to me. I can't seem any reason to think that, except that one has a prior commitment to the path of dry insight, as many here do. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #116945 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E (and Howard) > > (116790) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Howard. > > ... > > I certainly think that every intentional action is experienced as an arising dhamma by an apprehending citta, but I don't think that right action or right effort are merely such experiences, but that actions exist in their own right and that the action, not just the experience of the action, is part of the path. I don't believe that action per se has any significance in the commentarial view. It is difficult to split such a distinction between the paramatha terminology the way it is used, and the way that I understand it. The idea of absolute realities has implications of single isolated bounded experiential that have clear static existences for brief moments of existence and are thoroughly passive in nature that I don't accept as a correct understanding of action and experience. My understanding of the way in which paramatha dhammas is used explicitly denies the existence of volitional actions. That is the distinction I am trying to make, and it's a difficult one to discuss clearly. > =============== > > J: To my understanding, the teaching on paramattha dhammas explains the truth and actuality of the present moment, and how a direct understanding of that may lead to release from samsara. It does not accord specific status to anything that is not capable of being directly experienced (this would include actions occurring over time and presumed objects), as it is only that which can be directly experienced that can be the field for the development of insight. What can be directly experienced is the subject of the dispute in this case. Although only one experience can be experienced at a time, what that single experience consists of and what accumulations are at play in each experience causes greater complexity in what exists in each moment. The Abhidhammic view acknowledges that accumulations are at play in each moment and are passed on from citta to citta; therefore there are more items in each act of consciousness -- cetasikas, etc. -- than just the single object of experience in that moment. In addition, there are patterns and wholes created in experience by the concordance of those single cittas' connections through sanna, bhavanga cittas, etc., and so there is again a complex connectivity between cittas beyond the simpler isolated "single-citta" model that assumes one simple object for each citta even while parenthetically admitting all these connecting factors and passed-on accumulations which reappear in further developed states in each successive moment. It is my view that concepts and nimittas represent those more complex connections between cittas and that it is possible to understand the "reality" of both levels of understanding - both conceptual/conventional and single-citta/currently arising phenomena. Ken O., who is very conversant with commentary, claims that there is no statement in commentary that concepts cannot be the objects of insight, so there seems to be some dispute about this. I would very much like to see you take this up with him and see if you can find any statements to dispute what he says. What he says about this makes sense to me, and makes a more seamless whole of the path, both mundane and supramundane. I'm not conversant enough to really argue this with you, but I hope I'll get to watch if you discuss it with him. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #116946 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:32 am Subject: Faith is the Seed! bhikkhu5 Friends: Faith initiates the Noble path to Nibbâna! Faith is the Seed, the Initiator, and thud the Source of the Beginning. Faith is the Hand that takes up all the advantageous mental states. Faith is the Wealth above all, since it brings real and lasting Happiness. Faith is the Jump, since it enables beings to cross the flood of pain. Faith is the Purifier, since it cleans contaminating pollutions of the mind. <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <...> #116947 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:56 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > > > > > pt: First, we have to keep in mind what's the purpose of Dhamma, and abhidhamma for that matter? Imo, it is to describe the truth, which when understood leads to the end of samsara. ... Yikes, dude! After reading this post, I have drawn the conclusion that we are talking past each other with such unerring consistency that there seems to be a basic understanding missing about what either one of us is talking about. I've reached the conclusion that what is not clear on my end is that I was not just responding to you, but to my understanding of what the 'body of citta theory adherents' have expressed to me over many many posts, and I assumed that you agree with them on the points I was disputing. Judging by your responses and some further descriptions you gave, I actually don't think you are in agreement with some of the theoretical elements I was disputing, and in that sense they came off as strawmen. I still think that dhamma theory in general is based in a conceptually-based idea of pariyatti, and I have even had senior dsg-ers use the "right concept" idea as the basis of pariyatti - it's not something I made up all by myself. However, I think your version of pariyatti as you described it has quite a bit of flesh to it, and I'd like to take a closer look at that, so sometime when I'm not half-asleep, I'm going to focus on those sections where you actually get into your view of pariyatti, and see if I can contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion, despite my general long-windedness. ;-/ 'Night for now, and I'll be back... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #116948 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:01 pm Subject: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, I'm getting very short of time before my trip to England, so will attempt to extract qus from several of your posts, especially on rupas and see how it goes. Many thx for all your other reflections. (Meanwhile I note that Pt's train journeys must be going really quickly these days:-)) Phil, we'd better do the trimming for you until you work out how the iphone does it....!!) ***** 1.Practice - we continue to disagree on what the Teachings mean by practice. Lots more in U.P. 2.Brains and bodies - cannot be seen, heard, tasted or touched - only thought about! Only seven rupas experienced through the 5 sense doors. 3. "Do purposeful physical and mental activities have a positive effect on spiritual development?" you ask. Only right understanding and associated mental factors leads to "positive" "spiritual development" - samatha and vipassana bhavana. 4. You ask about "disassociated" "color" or "hardness" that is "not attached to a tree or a table" and whether they show up "one at a time". What we take for a tree or a table is a concept. In fact there are a mass of different kalapas (groups) or rupas arising and falling away. What is important for our purposes is that at any moment of seeing or touching, visible object or colour is seen and tangible object is experienced through the body-sense. In fact that colour or that tangible object (i.e temperature, solidity or pressure) arise in one of those kalapas, but only one rupa can be experienced (and known) at a time. Because of the experience of multiple rupas through different doorways, sanna (memory/perception) recognises what is experienced by marking the objects. Through the mind door there is thinking about the objects, more sanna, more marking, more remembering of trees and tables, usually with ignorance. 5. You ask if "anyone has ever experienced "hardness" without "smoothness" without "texture" and so on. Good question. What is experienced through the body-sense is that tangible object just as it is. We might call it "hardness" for short, but as you say, it is that particular characteristic of solidity with texture - no need to name it. What is experienced is the rupa. 6. Back to the "stitches" and the conceptual image of a "table" and more good qus. Yes, that means there really is no "physical table", just various elements arising and falling away. Of course, the rupas experienced when seeing the visible object or touching the tangible object which we call table are different from those which we call computer. Otherwise, sanna would not mark and differentiate, leading to different concepts. A blind person can tell you just through the different tactile experiences that they are not the same, but there is no understanding of the rupas as just those elements experienced through the body-sense. 7. On wholes - a concept - no wholes! Just elements - this is not some later "philosophy" but 101 as taught by the Buddha in the suttas too. See "Elements" in U.P. Rupas, physical elements, as experienced. They always arise in a group of at least 8 rupas. (Read Nina's book on Rupas if you have time.) Rupas still arise and fall away even when not experienced. However, the world to be known is the world that is experienced - one world at a time through one door-way. You ask where "hardness" lives when not touched. It (the pathavi dhatu or earth element), just arises and falls away as normal. What we call the "universe" is made up of such rupas arising and falling away all the time. OK, that's it for now - I have to go to the bank. Yes, I was a little optimistic to think I could respond to all your posts in one go, just as Pt was probably a little optimistic thinking that one long train journey to work would do the job:-) Hopefully there'll be a part 2 tomorrow. I know you'll understand that further replies to your replies will have to wait until my return in Sept. Meanwhile, excellent points you raise for discussion. Others may be able to help too. Metta Sarah p.s my mother told me on the phone that she'd already bought in some green tea - but with lemon.... we'll see how that is! ======= #116949 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta - Cemetary Contemplation (was, Re: A lovely drea... jonoabb Hi Howard [I sent this message on the weekend but it still hasn't appeared, so am resending] (116766) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon (and Robert) - > ... > > [RE:] Here is what the Buddha says: > > The monk "generates desire." > > He "endeavors." > > He "activates persistence." > > He "exerts his intent." > > > > These are quotes, as you requested, not paraphrases. Please show some > direct evidence that he is not saying that the monk's right effort actually > consists of "generating desire," "endeavoring," "activating persistence" > and "exerting intent," all volitional actions, not paramatha dhammas, which > Buddha says the monk does in practicing right effort. > =============== > [H:] Robert, the Buddha, in saying that the monk "generates desire" and > "endeavors" and "activates persistence" and "exerts his intent", is certainly > describing intentional actions. But why do you say they are "not paramattha > dhammas"? What else are they? I don't follow you in that. > =============== J: Thanks for coming in and asking this question, which was something I had also wondered about. Would like to take this opportunity to respond to an earlier message of yours on this same general subject, which I have been meaning to reply to for quite some time (115626 - apologies for the delay). > =============== > [J:] As explained in my earlier post, there can only be abstention where there > is the opportunity and inclination. This is not something that can be > `practised'. The occasion arises by circumstances, and cannot be replicated by > deliberate action. > =================================== > [H:] Jon, there is the following, in which please note the emphatic, > energetic, proactive terminology "generates desire, endeavors, activates > persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of ..." > I find "activates persistence" and "upholds & exerts his intent" to be > particularly proactive. This is purposeful, willful directing of the mind. > It is admittedly not an immediate, willful heading off of akusala, or > cutting off of already arisen akusala, or promoting the arising of kusala, or > furthering of already arisen kusala, but it IS an intentional cultivation of > mind for the sake of such occurrences happening automatically. It is a > preparation, a training, a cultivation. > > > "And what, monks, is right effort? > [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates > persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising > of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. ... > =============== J: In a message just sent to Rob E I quoted from the Vism Ch. XIV on the description of the NEP in terms of mental factors. The description of the factor of right effort (the 6th factor) is as follows: "81. When he is established on that plane of virtue called right speech, right action, and right livelihood, his energy, which is in conformity and associated with that right view, cuts off idleness, and that is called right effort. It has the characteristic of exerting. Its function is the non-arousing of unprofitable things, and so on. It is manifested as the abandoning of wrong effort." This to me describes effort as a factor with a function. And note that the energy is "associated with" the right view, i.e., is not a precursor to the right view. Jon #116950 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Jon) - Robert, I will make just a couple observations in the following: In a message dated 8/23/2011 1:41:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (116786) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > Thanks, Jon. I would not think you were making it up, however, it of course clarifies things to see where a view actually appears, as opposed to being some sort of conglomerate of an interpretation of the entire Tipitaka. When one says that this is "orthodox" and that it is a result of the "entire Tipitaka including commentaries..." I think that in a sense obscures the actuality of where this view comes from, and likewise obscures how universal it is, or whether it is indeed the logical conclusion of the entirety of the Tipitaka, which it is not. > =============== > > J: It is not a matter of whether an interpretation is a 'logical conclusion', but whether it is fully consistent with both the suttas and the Abhidhamma. I think there is a problem there, because I have found a number of inconsistencies in my limited experience with the commentaries between their interpretation and the obvious meaning of the suttas. Your solution to such seeming inconsistencies appears to be to grant interpretive power to the commentaries and give them the benefit of the doubt that their interpretation is the correct one, even when they seem to either go directly against what the sutta says, or to veer away from the subject matter of the sutta and say it was about something else. The Abhidhamma and the sutta pitaka also do not seem fully consistent, again from my limited exposure, either in emphasis or in some ways in the substance of what they say. When the Buddha says "strive with all your might" or something to that effect, your view of the Abhidhamma's standpoint on this is to say that it does not really mean that, but rather means to attend the arising of momentary dhammas, and that volition is an arising dhamma not something to be exercised as the Buddha's words would seem to indicate. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Striving is intentional expenditure of effort and energy directed toward a goal. It is something that occurs due to conditions and is not the action of an agent-entity. Striving "with all one's might" is a matter of the effort being very strong and the intention towards that effort being very strong. Being advised to "strive with all one's might" is a condition for thinking in that direction, and thinking that concludes the advisability of doing so conditions the strong intention needed and the consequent effort. So, the "personal" terminology does come down to impersonal qualities and operations, does it not? There is no actual "actor" involved, is there? -------------------------------------------------- So, in my view, it seems to often be a *choice* between the sutta's way of speaking of the path and the Abhidhamma & commentaries way of speaking of the path, rather than some form of overall consistency between the two. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: But two different ways of speaking doesn't, in and of itself, imply inconsistency, does it? One simply explains the other with a terminology emphasizing the impersonal/anatta aspect of things. ----------------------------------------------- =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116951 From: Ken O Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:28 am Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) ashkenn2k Dear dhamma friends let it make even more interesting Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma, pg 322, PTS <<(42) Therein, when by means of a concept people bring about knowledge of something that exists in an ultimate sense, such as materiality and feeling, this is a concept of something existent. But when by means of a concept people bring about knowledge of something that does not exist in an ultimate sense, such as earth or mountains, this is a concept of something non-existent. The others should be understood by the combination of both with reference to respectively "one who has six higher knowledge’s", the sound of the woman, eye consciousness and a king's son The Commentary <<42 By means of a concept people bring about knowledge: They explain using the words materiality, feeling etc Of both: of the two, existent and non existent One who has the six higher knowledge is one who has the six higher knowledge, namely the five higher knowledge and the knowledge of the destruction of the taints And therein, since the six higher knowledge exist while the person obtaining them does not exist, this is called a concept of the non-existent with the existent Similarly, since the woman does not exist while the sound does exist, "the sound of the woman" is a concept of existent with the non-existent Since the sensitive eye and the consciousness dependent on that exist, "eye consciousness" is a concept of the existent with the existent And since the king and the son are conventional realities, 'a king's son' is a concept of the non existent with the non existent>> Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma (43) [There is a concept as] as the objective field of the mind-door [process] which arises immediately after the occurrence of an ear consciousness process in the wake of the sound of speech: it is in conformity with this that meanings are afterwards discerned. A concept such as this is to be seen as created through ordinary conventions. Commentary 43. In the wake of the sound of speech: an ear-consciousness process occurs in the wake of - following, mindful of, making its object the sound consisting of speech such as earth, mountain, materiality, feeling; immediately after its occurrence, [a conceptual name] becomes the objective field - becomes the object - of the mind door [which has arisen] - of the sequence mind-door processes that occur in the manner of reflecting on the words (nama) having a particular meaning; after this registering of the name, in conformity with this conceptual name whose referents are conventional and ultimate are conventional and ultimate meanings, whether conventional or ultimate, are discerned A concept as this, namely earth, mountain, materiality, feeling, which brings about understanding of the meaning that should be understood, which is apprehended though the mind door and consists of a series of syllables, is to be seen as created through ordinary conventions, accepted by common designations; a conceptual name is reckoned a concept because it brings about understanding. And here an ear consciousness process is stated as also including the same process of ear consciousness the process of the mind door which comes into being immediately after the ear consciousness process. For when one hears the word drum, etc " for every sound [or word] there are two courses of impulsion by way of a present and past object, [while] there is one [course of impulsion] taking the sequence of syllables which constitute the conceptual name apprehended by one’s intellect; in this way the conceptual name is apprehended immediately after the process of impulsion that has its object the past sounds [or words] and that occurs immediately after the [actual] ear consciousness process: after that, so the teachers say, one understands the meaning.>> Ken O > >From: philip >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Tuesday, 23 August 2011 06:55:16 >Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) > > > > >Hi Rob E (and pt all) > >Apologies to the mods for having to leave such a long msg untrimmed, but Rob, I >have to say that I can at least understand your point of view up until the part >about personality being real and letting go leading to upliftment, that sounds >very wrong. Surely the letting go, if it comes will involve any idea of >personality (as helpful as it can be at times now) being completely dispelled, >dropped with the raft. What you wrote sounds like you believe the personality is > >an entity with ultimately lasting characteristics. Did I misunderstand? If not, >anything you say about overvaluing the understanding of theory is moot, I think. > >Personally I struggle with understanding whether physiological beings and >objects such as trees exist or not but the idea that persons or personalities >have real existence must be wrong, surely. Howard wrote nicely about the >whirlpool, often a wave rising fron the sea is used, but that moment by moment >forming of a sense of person/personality can surely be understood even in theory > >as meaning no lasting personality that can be "uplifted" except by lobha moha. >(I agree there are > >helpful moments of feeling happy that we are being uplifted above gross >defilement-rooted behaviour, but surely that is a pretty primitive stage of >development...) >Metta, >Phil > #116952 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhas instruction in the suttas truth_aerator Dear Sarah, >A:. And they *do* teach intentional, energetic and willful >development. > >What about viriya (Energy) ? What about 4 iddhipadas and 4 right >efforts? > .... >S: These only develop with the development of right understanding >and the other path factors. While they are taken for oneself who >must strive and make an effort, rather than as conditioned dhammas >not belonging to anyone, they will never develop. >=========================================================== Why does one excludes the other? Sure one can describe driving using dozens text books about physics, chemistry, mechanics, etc. Sure the car can be disassembled into millions of parts, and so is the human body. But these things do conventionally occur, no matter how you describe it. With best wishes, Alex #116953 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:02 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Hi Rob E (and pt all) > > > Apologies to the mods for having to leave such a long msg untrimmed, but Rob, I have to say that I can at least understand your point of view up until the part about personality being real and letting go leading to upliftment, that sounds very wrong. Well, the personality is real in so far as it is composed of khandas, but no, I don't think the personality as an entity or a central command unit or any other sense of a controlling or whole being exists, and I don't think there is a little person inside the kandhas running the show. Those delusory senses of self which many people subliminally think exist are clearly illusory concepts. Does the body exist? Does the nervous system exist? Does the brain exist? And do these coordinate to create a functional psychophysical organism? Well, I do think those structures do come into being, but following the law of anicca they are constantly crumbling and reforming like everything else, and they are of course temporary and subject to falling apart and eventually dying, just like a piece of furniture, and it has just as much internal beingness and entity as a piece of furniture as well. However, the functions that take place because of its physical structures, I believe really do take place. Buddha taught that experiences both inner and outer are "not-self" because they are unsatisfying, temporary, not subject to control and give rise to clinging, craving and aversion. He did not teach that they were unreal, but that they were just shifting heaps of stuff that is constantly changing - the kandhas; and that as such they represented impersonal processes. As far as that goes, I think we pretty much agree, though I can't vouch for the specific breakdown of elements of experience as they are given in the Abhidhamma, because I'm personally not sure that their precise crisp description of exactly how everything is supposed to take place is accurate. In order to believe that, one has to have faith that the Abhidhamma was given by Buddha on another plane of existence, and that the commentaries were written by infallible arahants. My faith extends to the Buddha's teaching in sutta, and I believe that the Abhidhamma and commentaries have many important lights to shed on the teachings, but I don't accord them the same status and the same faith that I give to the Buddha himself and what I know he himself said. What would it mean to "uplift" the personality on the way to enlightenment? Well it's a slightly non-Buddhic way of saying that the elements of experience are refined and improved - become more kusala - through the increased awareness and detachment that develops on the path. I believe the overall pattern and quality of the mind and its way of experiencing and understanding things becomes more refined, aware and less reactive and clinging as it gets closer to enlightenment. I see it as a gradual path. Surely the way an arahant sees and reacts to things is not like we do, and I see a continuum of development and refinement between 'we monkeys' and the state of an enlightened 'being,' if I can use that term provisionally without causing too much alarm. I don't see "letting go" as a last-minute event at the end of the path. I see it as a gradual development of capability that happens as we develop mindfulness and see the unsatisfactoriness of various dhammas and stop holding on as tight, and gradually drop things that don't make sense anymore. As we go along there is less clinging and craving and more acceptance and equanimity and eventually we see more precisely into the nature of arising experience and clinging, craving, detachment etc. and are able to respond more gracefully in the moment. So I think I see things not unlike probably you or pt, but I just don't necessarily adhere to the precise breakdown of the latter-day scriptures, and I don't believe that there is no practice or development that the "personality structures" engage in [kandhas - ] I think they participate and become carriers of greater awareness before final enlightenment when there is no more clinging and craving and experience doesn't have to arise at all. I think there's a fine line between saying the kandhas exist and the kandhas form a self, and I'm right in the middle. The kandhas I think are both the vehicles of delusion and the vehicles of development. If they were not, how could we progress to a higher understanding or awareness? Citta has to become enlightened, and citta is one of the kandhas, etc. If that doesn't explain my view adequately, I'll be happy to say more, but I anticipate that this is going to go on pt's list of my long-winded posts, so I'd better stop. I thought the rest of what you said was fine and I think I agree with all of it. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = > Surely the letting go, if it comes will involve any idea of personality (as helpful as it can be at times now) being completely dispelled, dropped with the raft. What you wrote sounds like you believe the personality is an entity with ultimately lasting characteristics. Did I misunderstand? If not, anything you say about overvaluing the understanding of theory is moot, I think. Personally I struggle with understanding whether physiological beings and objects such as trees exist or not but the idea that persons or personalities have real existence must be wrong, surely. Howard wrote nicely about the whirlpool, often a wave rising fron the sea is used, but that moment by moment forming of a sense of person/personality can surely be understood even in theory as meaning no lasting personality that can be "uplifted" except by lobha moha. (I agree there are > helpful moments of feeling happy that we are being uplifted above gross defilement-rooted behaviour, but surely that is a pretty primitive stage of development...) > Metta, > Phil ============================= #116954 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: When the Buddha says "strive with all your might" > or something to that effect, your view of the Abhidhamma's standpoint on > this is to say that it does not really mean that, but rather means to attend > the arising of momentary dhammas, and that volition is an arising dhamma > not something to be exercised as the Buddha's words would seem to indicate. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Striving is intentional expenditure of effort and energy directed > toward a goal. It is something that occurs due to conditions and is not the > action of an agent-entity. Striving "with all one's might" is a matter of the > effort being very strong and the intention towards that effort being very > strong. Being advised to "strive with all one's might" is a condition for > thinking in that direction, and thinking that concludes the advisability of > doing so conditions the strong intention needed and the consequent effort. > So, the "personal" terminology does come down to impersonal qualities and > operations, does it not? There is no actual "actor" involved, is there? > -------------------------------------------------- Well I think that's the point. You may get the wrong idea about what I am defending. What I am saying is when the Buddha says to do that 'just go with it,' don't think 'he didn't mean it and so I shouldn't practice, just wait for the dhammas to arise.' I think that if one has the impetus to practice then the conditions that you describe have been met and that this allows the practice to take place. If competing thoughts arise that say "oh no Buddha didn't mean that so i should stop that" then that is wrong view and it stops the natural action of practice. The Buddha's Dhamma does in fact naturally lead to practice of various kinds for those who have the accumulations to be activated by that message. Yes it's impersonal but it's also subject to interpetation, and my view is that the 'non-volitional-practice' interpretation is wrong. Every skill is conditioned both by practice and some kind of teaching and feedback and the skills of mindfulness and samatha that lead to insight and satipatthana are no different. Buddha's teaching starts the ball rolling and then practice leads to further experiences that verify the Buddha's teaching. And so that process should be allowed to go forward not inhibited. I hope that is a little more clear. > So, in my view, it seems to often be a *choice* between the sutta's way of > speaking of the path and the Abhidhamma & commentaries way of speaking of > the path, rather than some form of overall consistency between the two. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > But two different ways of speaking doesn't, in and of itself, imply > inconsistency, does it? One simply explains the other with a terminology > emphasizing the impersonal/anatta aspect of things. > ----------------------------------------------- That is fine as long as one learns those details from it and all the good things that one can get from that view without drawing the wrong conclusions from it - that wrong view being that the complex understanding of how dhammas and conditions operate can substitute for practice in creating the conditions for development of the enlightenment factors. I know that some will say this is a straw man, but that is what is often at play - a belief that just understanding the Dhamma and waiting for various moments of bhavana to arise all by themselves is an adequate activation of the path. The commentaries that seem to discourage practice or that interpret the Buddha and Vism as saying that one shouldn't do precisely what they encourage to be done - seek a teacher, practice diligently, develop mindfulness through countings, breathings, attending to the four foundations, use jhana as a way to calm and center the mind so that insight may use the subtle state as object of insight, etc., are giving wrong interpretations of the teachings. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #116955 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:33 pm Subject: f/w message from yahoo - "Message posting issue resolved" dsgmods f/w message - replies off-list to them, thx. Sarah & Jon ============= An update to let folks know that we believe the issue with messages not posting to Groups has been resolved. The root cause was a misconfiguration on one bank of servers that caused messages to fail to route properly. The problem was fixed Monday at 10 am PDT (5 pm GMT) and our scripts and process have been updated to prevent such a misconfiguration from happening again. (Note: We waited to send this update until we were confident that this was the only issue and the problem was fully resolved). The problem affected ~10-15% of messages posted to Groups between Friday afternoon and Monday morning PDT (and would have affected messages posted via the web or email). Messages posted after Sunday at 10 am PDT (or approved by moderators after that time if the message in question required moderation) should have posted to group but would have been delayed until Monday morning. Messages posted (/approved) before Sunday at 10 am should have been bounced back to the sender after 24 hours with a message saying the mail server was unreachable or unresponsive. But at this point, whether or not you received a notification that your message failed to deliver, if a message you sent this weekend has not yet posted to the group, we would recommend that you resend the message. Our apologies for any hassles and inconvenience caused by this issue. - Yahoo! Groups Team P.S. If you believe the problem has not been fully resolved and you are still having problems posting messages, go to http://tinyurl.com/groupscontactus http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/contact/forms_index.htm\ l and choose the "Problems Posting Messages ..." category. From there you will find information that may help resolve the problem or you will have the option to contact us. #116956 From: "philip" Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhas instruction in the suttas philofillet Hi Alex > >A:. And they *do* teach intentional, energetic and willful >development. > > > >What about viriya (Energy) ? What about 4 iddhipadas and 4 right >efforts? Ph: I agree with you that the Buddha prescribed certain behaviour, such as seeking physical seclusion to develop kusala factors (whether we today in this info overloaded, achuevment-oriented world can benefit from going on retreats etc is another topic in my opinion) but I am always confused when people say that the Buddha told people to have virya, how could he? Virya is surely a helpful (essential)factor that arises, and I would agree that some conventional deeds such as seeking phyical seclusion could provide better conditions for it arising, but surely the Buddha praised and described the arising of the four right efforts so that they can be object of awareness when arising, and thereby conditioned for more frequent arising? Is it really helpful to sit and think "all right, I'm going to practice the four right efforts now." Maybe I am as ysual underestinating the potential in other mindstreams because of my iwn (so to speak) sleepy mess of a citta stream, but trying to intentiinally develop the four right efforts rather than developing awareness of them when they arise seems like an exercise in futility. Am I too pessimistic, or am I right in saying that virya should be recognized and welcomed rather than willed? > >S: These only develop with the development of right understanding >and the other path factors. While they are taken for oneself who >must strive and make an effort, rather than as conditioned dhammas >not belonging to anyone, they will never develop >===========================================================> Why does one excludes the other? Sure one can describe driving using dozens text books about physics, chemistry, mechanics, etc. Sure the car can be disassembled into millions of parts, and so is the human body. But these things do conventionally occur, no matter how you describe it. Ph: I would agree that the concept " I have been an energetic person about challenging akusala today" can be helpful, but "there has been a lot of virya arising due to conditions today to support awareness of akusala" is closer to thetruth and is therefore more valuable, even though it is still a concept and is based on speculation since (in my opinion) it is likely to be based on moments of thinking about virya that is likely to have arisen in conventional situations (e.g avoiding clicking on the Yakuza Chicks In Heat page) rather than actual awareness of its characteristics. Just some thoughts... Metta, Phil #116957 From: "philip" Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:15 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) philofillet Hi Rob E Thanks for the msg, will read later, but I can see from a quick read of the beginning (I expect to reach the end sometime next week) I misunderstood your view on the personality, thankfully ;) Metta, Phil p.s mods, I at least learned how to cut an entire post, selective cut and paste ability may follow! #116958 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:36 am Subject: Reviewing Own Generosity! bhikkhu5 Friends: Contemplating the Extent of own Generosity: One naturally devoted to generosity by the constant practice of giving and sharing makes the decision: From now on, whenever there is anyone present to receive, I shall not eat even a single mouthful without having given a gift! And that very day he should give a gift by sharing whatever according to his means and his ability with those, who have distinguished mental qualities. When he has apprehended the sign in that, he should go into solitary retreat and recollect his own generosity in its special qualities of being free from the stain of mean miserliness like this: It is gain for me, it is great gain for me, that in a culture obsessed by the greedy stain of niggardliness, I abide with my mind & heart free from penny-pinching stinginess. I delight indeed in relinquishing by being freely generous & open-handed, always welcoming any request by rejoicing in all altruistic giving and sharing (AN III 287). Any who gives life by giving food will get life & strength either divine or as a human (AN III 42). Any giver is loved & frequented by many (AN III 40). One who gives, is ever loved, according to the wise man's law! (AN III 41). When a Bhikkhu is devoted to this recollection of generosity, he becomes ever more intent on generosity, his favourite becomes non-greedy charity, he acts with kind, noble, & loving liberality, and he gains a fine lion-heart. He enjoys much happiness and gladness. And if he penetrates no higher, he is at least headed for a happy destiny. The Gods became Gods as a result of their magnanimous Giving! Now when a man is truly wise, His constant task will surely be This recollection of his prior giving Blessed with such mighty potency! Vism I 224 <....> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #116959 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:53 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hey pt. Thanks for the enormously challenging conversation. You are now up there with Sukin and Jon for head-to-head conversants talking past, around and in opposition to each other! However I think when it comes to your actual description of pariyatti we are not that far apart in some ways. Only I am not sure if I would call what you are describing pariyatti. A few comments below on this and that, and then a few comments below on your rendition of pariyatti. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > > > > > pt: First, we have to keep in mind what's the purpose of Dhamma, and abhidhamma for that matter? Imo, it is to describe the truth, which when understood leads to the end of samsara. > > > > > > > > RE: That is one interpretation of the path. > > > > > > pt: Are you saying that path culminates in something other than parinibbana, i.e. the end of samsara/round of rebirths? > > > > RE: No, I'm not referring to the second part of your sentence, but to the first - that describing the truth is the purpose of the Dhamma, and that understanding that description leads to the end of samsara. I don't think that understanding the description of the truth leads to the end of samsara, which is the pariyatti-oriented view. > > pt: See, a strawman again. I say A, you say "you said B", and then you say "B is wrong because of C". Of course, neither B nor C have anything to do with A. I hope it's obvious that such discussion approach, repeated over and over, becomes very tyring, particularly in your case, since your replies are generally extremely long and difficult in terms of keeping track of definite points. Well my feeling about this is that you are translating your own impatience into my supposed long-windedness and lack of clarity. Trust me that having you not get my points and call me a strawman-maker over and over again is equally frustrating. Not to mention a little bit of condescension and self-righteousness here and there, such as saying "...for purposes of diplomacy...," as opposed to accuracy, over and over again, as if there is something especially nice about that. > Anyway, to return to my original statement, "which when understood" referred to understanding the truth, not to understanding the "description of the truth". "Which when understood" refers to the truth, but understanding it comes by way of hearing the description, and then through contemplating the description of reality - that is, the written scriptures - one comes to understand that reality. My observation is that a lot of the time what is involved in that is in considering and discussing the description and the units of experience that it explains. That is why I said that the understanding of the truth in this approach to Dhamma is one of coming to understand the description more clearly. This may seem long-winded to you, but it's necessary in my view. If the above is true, which you may dispute or call "straw man" again if you like, then this is an intellectually-based path. The practice involved is considering the description of reality more and more closely so that one understands how realities work. I am not saying this is your view. I am saying that this is the view I am acquainted with from many conversations - that right view leads through understanding the material in the Tipitaka, at first intellectually, and that the other path factors all follow naturally from this understanding. > So it's sort of like what you write below regarding the correct practice: > > > RE: I think that understanding the description of the truth leads to a correct understanding of correct practice, and that only correct practice leads to the ending of samsara. > > pt: which would indicate we're in agreement somewhat. Except that I'm not sure to what degree our understanding of correct practice is the same. > > RE: I think you could understand the truth as described by the Dhamma for many many lifetimes, better and better and in more detail, without creating the conditions that would lead to the ending of samsara. > > pt: Speculation, who knows. The fact that it is speculative, and can't be determined in this lifetime with any certainty, is the point. > > RE: So the question is about what practice leads to the ending of samsara, not whether the end of the path is parinibbana, which we would all agree. > > pt: I'd write strawman for purposes of accuracy, but for purposes of diplomacy, my original statement was referring to understanding of the truth that leads to the end of samsara, which I think can be equated to your statement regarding practice that leads to the ending of samsara, i.e. understanding of the truth is the practice, to put it simply, so we're still in agreement more or less. It depends on what you mean by "understanding of the truth." In what way is the truth understood to qualify as "practice" rather than conceptual knowledge? Can you say more about what the understanding consists of and how and in what way it is understood? > > RE: There are many here who believe that the study of the Dhamma on that level of "understanding the description" will in and of itself eventually unfold into the transformation of consciousness and the direct realization of the nature of self and reality, ie, satipatthana. There are also those who believe that having understood the description of reality and the path to some degree, that one then continues a two or three-fold practice: continuing to understand the nature of reality and the description of the path as given in the Dhamma, the continuing practice in everyday life to be aware of what is actually happening in the moment and to let go or become more detached from those things which arise as we become aware of them, and to practice the development of awareness and letting go through formal meditative practice as described by the Buddha. It is my view that the application of the Dhamma to everyday life, to understanding the Buddha's teaching, and to practicing towards the skillful development of awareness and letting go, is the threefold action that causes the path to move towards the ending of samsara. > > pt: ...taking the above as an argument on its own - I think you are still mistaken regarding what pariyatti is. Maybe discuss it with Jon, Sarah, KenH, Sukin, they're far better at it than me. E.g. to take the three items you mention that describe your practice: understanding the description, everyday practice, and meditative practice - these three things, provided they are all kusala cittas, would all still be integral elements of pariyatti I think. Except that there is a strong view among all those you have mentioned that meditation is not part of the path, does not lead to kusala cittas arising and strengthens the sense of personal self-view. Is that your view as well, or not? > In other words, hearing the dhamma (description), considering it through daily life experiences (everyday practice), and actual moments of understanding (bhavana/meditation/development) are all pariyatti I think. The main points of dispute are: how do considerations in daily life take place - do they just arise or are they cultivated purposely? And: does meditation practice = bhavana, or can it? What is your view on those points? > So your argument predicated on "There are many here who believe that the study of the Dhamma on that level of "understanding the description"..." is off since the initial assumption about what is pariyatti isn't quite right I'd say. The way in which you framed everyday experience of dhammas and arising of bhavana are different than I would put them. It comes down to whether they are actual practices or not, which "the many" we are talking about would say they are not. I am also finding the definition of pariyatti extremely flexible depending on the context. I remember being told over and over again that right view and understanding the Dhamma intellectually was pariyatti and that understanding Dhamma conceptually was necessary first before true moments of panna and mindfulness would arise in "everyday life," which would be patipatti. Patipatti = practice, and pariyatti is the understanding "of the desription" that leads to correct practice. So you seem to disagree with this and think pariyatti involves a lot more of the actual practice, the actual arising of mindfulness, understanding, etc., to whatever degree. That leaves me pretty confused between different versions of pariyatti, speaking of consistency. Okay, it's gotten late again. I'll take up more tomorrow or soon... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > RE: I understand the arguments that any formal purposeful development of awareness and release of clinging and craving only assert and strengthen the false idea of control and self-view, but I don't agree with that argument and I think it is incorrect. > > pt: My impression is that you don't quite understand those arguments. Perhaps consider this. Everything is purposeful because every citta has intention. But the citta will be kusala or akusala depending on the roots. The roots and the citta are conditioned. If citta is akusala, it won't condition a kusala citta in the near or far future (it's possible, but highly unlikely, so most probably won't). If citta is kusala, it already constitutes development, and will condition more kusala in the near or far future. Kusala citta, in terms of a path moment, is when panna sees the general or individual characteristics of the object. That's as dry as I can put it I think, if it makes sense. > > > > RE: In my view of the path, it is possible and it is necessary to study the theory of the Dhamma through sutta and perhaps through Abdhidhamma and commentary for those who find the greatest knowledge of the Dhamma in that way, and also to practice and development the enlightenment factors through both everyday life and meditation without increasing akusala or self-view. When akusala and self-view arise, as they will in any case, that is just more grist for the mill to become aware and release whatever attachment is realized. > > pt: Agreed, if "practice and development" refer to kusala cittas that see the object to arise in a conditioned manner. > > > RE: I also don't believe that the culmination of the path is a precise understanding of the specifics of dhammas, but rather a transformational consciousness that realizes the vanity of whatever arises and is able to let go of attachment to whatever arises. > > pt: Leaving aside the possibility that you're implying that consciousness lasts in some way, wouldn't the above mean that every citta arises with the root of attachment (lobha)? I'm not sure that's quote right as there are other roots, and not all aksuala cittas arise with lobha. If you were to say "let go of ignorance (moha) to whatever arise", I could agree with that, because moha arises with every akusala citta. > > > RE: In my understanding this is not just a matter of an individual citta letting go of its object of scrutiny, but a full-personality letting go and upliftment. Those who do not believe however that the body and personality are real and subject to various states will not agree with this sense of an actual person being lifted up to another state of being. That actual person is made up of many moments of consciousness, physical action and internal states arising, but the pattern of what arises and how these are regarded by consciousness is transformed and changed. > > pt: Yeah, I don't quite get how that bit about people being lifted up fits into buddhism, so I'll skip it rather than debating what I don't understand. > > > RE: If you believe that the path and enlightenment is a matter of an individual citta at a moment taking a specific object for that moment, then what you say makes sense. I don't really believe that the path comes down to one specific kind of technical moment of taking a special object as object of citta. I think it's a more consistent pattern of a consciousness that has been changed in many many moments and is transformed from its former way of taking objects, and that even this doesn't fully describe the complete profile of the different levels of experience that have changed. I guess you could describe that as cittas, cetasikas and rupas of various kinds in various patterns and that would be agreeable to me, but I Don't think that technical language in the way it is described in commentaries necessarily fully describes what takes place and how many billions of moments are involved or how the pattern of those arising and being taken as objects changes in such a case. Not just this or that single individual citta, or ten or twenty that makes the transformation take place, but a continual stream of cittas that have been evolving in that direction and reach a certain point of understanding. I don't think that each single individual citta contains the universe. I just don't agree with that way of looking at things. > > pt: There are many things in the above that are sort of red flags for the belief in lasting consciousness, etc. For purposes of diplomacy I'd say this though - reference to one path moment, a single conditioned citta taking an object and then falling away, etc - imo all these primarily serve the purpose of reminding us about anatta and conditioned nature of every experience, which hopefully helps towards direct insight at some point. Whether there are patterns of concsiousness, streams, evolution of consciousness, all these things, though comforting and maybe even logical, don't really remind me about anatta and conditionality, which is why I don't think they are useful directions of speculation. Imo, that is. > > > > pt: "conventional reality is unreal and that the unseen view of momentary dhammas is real" - that's a strawman of yours. > > > > RE: It's not exactly a strawman, > > pt: Yes it is because I never said that "conventional reality is unreal and that the unseen view of momentary dhammas is real", so therefore these two, and the antagonism between them, exist in your head, not mine. > > > RE: If you are saying that conventional reality is *not* unreal, then there are many who would not agree with that. Many say that conventional reality is merely conceptual and does not occur as we experience it. > > pt: I find endless arguments on this real/unreal subject, and then the supposed antagonism between the two, a bit off course, to say the least. I mean, the process of cognition works as it does, and well, that's how things are. There's a sense-door process, and then a mind-door process, and then more mind-door process, with objects that change from dhamma, to nimitta of a dhamma, to nimitta of a concept. And that's it. Which component in all this is real and which is unreal? The argument doesn't really apply at all I'd say. > > > RE: As for the unseen view of dhammas, it's true isn't it? If you haven't experienced it directly or at least through a convincing enough nimitta that you know that you are tracking the true reality of momentary dhammas, then it is still a theory, no matter how fully you may think it is correct. So it is believed in, but the dhammas are still unseen. If that is the case, it's a matter of being convinced logically and having faith in that teaching, but it is still not known directly. > > pt: If, ok. > > > RE: We do know directly, for what it's worth, the experience of drinking a glass of water. > > pt: You are serious here? > > > RE: We can say it's conceptual and that it's not the true reality we experience, but we don't actually know that. Again, it's a matter of faith and belief that this is the case, and that is a conceptual understanding. > > pt: And here? > > > RE: So where's the straw man? > > pt: I hope I addressed that way up above. > > > > > > RE: When the mundane path is applied to everyday life as it is known and lived, and at the same time contemplation is given to the units of experience and how they arise from moment to moment, this gives a healthy balance and a healthy path. But dismissing everyday experience in favor of 'right concepts' does not seem healthy to me. > > > > > > pt: Strawman. > > > > RE: Well you say that summarily, but I don't mean it as a strawman. > > pt: Well, basically, what you said comes across as if I said that everyday experience should be dismissed in favor of "right concepts". I didn't, and the statement on its own merits is dubious. > > > RE: I have been told many times that having the right conceptual understanding of realities, eg, pariyatti, is the prerequisite and also the means by which direct understanding develops, but that it will not develop to that point possibly for many lifetimes. So one is trusting and believing that this is the right path, but meanwhile the experiences of life are seen as concepts instead of being taken as actual existing objects of experience. > > pt: This last bit "meanwhile the experiences of life are seen as concepts" is speculation on your behalf, and possibly a result of not really understanding what pariyatti is. I'm not saying I understand it that great either, but for me, what you said has little to do with pariyatti. > > > RE: That is the truth. So it's not a strawman to me. If you think my view is incorrect, that is fine with me. Discuss it on the merits, but dismissing it as a kind of "ruse," eg, strawman, does not deal with it very well. It's not meant that way. > > pt: I think I explained that "strawman" refers to putting things into my mouth that I haven't said and then refuting them. In essence then you are having an argument with yourself, not with me. > > > > > > pt: Second, how is that truth described? Imo, by pointing out dhammas and their characteristics - anatta, etc. > > > > > > > > > > So, i guess my point is that samsara will not stop no matter how well you use your knives and forks. Neither will samsara stop if you stop using your knives and forks completely. Neither will it stop if you try to see the anatta nature of knives and forks. Etc. Samsara will only stop once anatta nature of feeling and other khandas is seen. Feeling and other khandas are dhammas. > > > > > > > RE: I don't agree with this absolute distinction, which is quite polarized between everyday experiences and dhammas, > > > > > > pt: Strawman. > > > > > > > RE: nor the distinction between knives and forks - everyday activities - and feelings. > > > > > > pt: Strawman. > > > > RE: These "strawman" references may be satisfying for you, but they're not going to lead to greater understanding, at least on my part. > > pt: Alright, for purposes of diplomacy, where did I say that everyday experiences and dhammas are polarised. Dhammas are everyday expereinces. As are concepts. Again, that's how process of cognition works. There's no polarisation. Same for knives and forks, acitivities and feelings. I don't think I said any of it. What I said was: "Samsara will only stop once anatta nature of feeling and other khandas is seen. Feeling and other khandas are dhammas." > > To express it differently in terms of the process of cognition, if panna is present during javana processes of the sense-door process and mind-door process that take a dhamma as object, that'd be path moments that lead to the end of samsara (eventually). If panna is present during mind-door processes that take concepts as objects, that would still be kusala moments, which might at some point condition the arising of panna in the previous two kinds of processes, but these wouldn't be classified as path moments I think. > > > RE: I mean what I say as serious statements. I'm sorry you see them as setups or false distinctions, because I really mean them as statements of what I see and understand in the philosophy under discussion. If you want to explain how they are incorrect distinctions, feel free; otherwise, I get it - you think they are strawmen but I don't agree. > > pt: I hope I explained the strawman issue above. > > ... > > > RE: Well I'm no master of the lingo, so I'm just saying what I think as best I can. Ken O. has recently stated that a conventional object, a concept, can be the object of mundane insight. There is some dispute on this subject, but I'm not technically sharp enough to understand it on that level. This makes sense to me but I can't really argue it out on a technical level. > > pt: Let's drop it then. KenO needs to figure this one out with Sarah and others. > > > > > RE: But to intellectually map a degree of microscopic namas and rupas that are not really experienced just provides an intellectual overlay. > > > > > > pt: Strawman. > > > > RE: Yeah, I was guessing that's what you would say. Whenever I describe the single citta nama-rupa universe as "not really experienced" you say it is a strawman. > > pt: Strawman referred to my alleged advocating "to intellectually map a degree of microscopic namas and rupas", which of course is absurd, while the statement by itself is nonsensical. Again, remember the purpose of Dhamma, so when someone says "citta arises with dosa" for example, it's not to describe the universe like science does, but simply to encourage understanding of the truth, closer and closer. For example, next time you get angry at Mr.X for doing Y, your attention will not be stuck for half an hour on the story why you're angry at him while just getting more angry, but instead, perception might recall the citta arising with dosa and attention will then turn to anger (dosa) itself and panna will see it as the actual problem in the whole situation. That'd be beginnings of pariyatti I think. Then some other time when Mr.Z says something and you get angry, attention might jump straight to the anger and panna will recognise it as akusala and won't even bother with the whole story of Mr.Z and his bad way with words. That'd be beginnings of patipatti I think. And then at some opportune point later, attention might jump to anger and see it as anatta. And so on, closer and closer to the truth. > > > RE: Well, sorry, pt, but it's not actually experienced by anyone around here, so it's not a strawman, it's reality. That doesn't make that philosophy incorrect or untrue, but it doesn't make it correct or true either. > > pt: So when you are angry, isn't there dosa? Slowly we learn to see it more and more closer, as encouraged by the statements like "citta arises with dosa", so, minus the story about who said what, minus the "I don't like anger", minus the "my" anger, etc. It just gets to be seen more and more clearly, so firstly less and less like a rationalisation, then less and less like a concept of a dhamma, and then more and more as direct experience that is anatta. > > > RE: So go ahead, keep saying "strawman" as much as you like. It's not a substitute for discussing these statements on the merits. I understand if that doesn't seem worth your time, since you disagree with them, but that's up to you. > > pt: I hope you understand my strawman objections so far. I appreciate the ability to restate someone's statement for purposes of checking your own understanding, but if unclear, then the logical step is to ask for clarification, rather than assume something else and then refute it, thus producing a strawman. > > > > > RE: I think it's better to be aware of the namarupa nature of what arises without worrying about whether it is conventional or paramatha and see the characteristics, the attachments, the feelings that attend it, rather than intellectualize it. > > > > > > pt: You are a master strawman maker. > > > > RE: Well one thing is clear, you are master at saying "strawman," for what it's worth. I don't think it's a strawman, but without a more substantive exchange, it's hard to say much about it one way or the other. Hope you're having fun. > > pt: Strawman referred to my alleged advocating of intellectualizing it. Basically, I don't differ too much from your statement now: "I think it's better to be aware of the namarupa nature of what arises without worrying about whether it is conventional or paramatha and see the characteristics, the attachments, the feelings that attend it" > > > > > > > pt: So i guess another point that has to be made is that there's nothing wrong with concepts. They are very useful in sustaining life. But sustaining life is not the same as ending samsara. > > > > > > > > RE: I don't think that's really the question. It is whether what you are calling concepts can be objects of awareness. The philosophy that is often subscribed to on dsg says 'no,' but that is a kind of intellectualism as well. > > > > > > pt: Master of masters in fact. > > > > Maybe. Or maybe you just don't like what I'm saying and don't want to think about it. > > pt: Strawman refers to the statement "It is whether what you are calling concepts can be objects of awareness. The philosophy that is often subscribed to on dsg says 'no,'". I don't think that's right at all. See the recent thread on abstention for example. > > ... > > RE: I was saying that you see a person and of course you apprehend them as such - this is Rob E. who is a master strawman-maker. But according to dhamma theory Rob e. does not exist as a person as such - that is understood to be a concept. So you are at odds with your own natural perception. You see Rob E, but you think that seeing is just a conceptual construction. It takes an act of intellect to overrule your natural perception of Rob E., master strawman-maker, and to say to yourself, "He is just a concept." That is what I mean by an intellectual overlay. I hope that's more clear. > > pt: Sure, but that's pure speculation which has little to do with how things really happen. The purpose of saying things like "a person is a concept, while thinking about the person is a dhamma" for example, is again to encourage direct understanding. E.g. perhaps next time I see RobE and start getting annoyed with his long posts, my attention will be encouraged to be drawn away from the whole story and will just notice thinking itself. No more story. And then at some later point thinking might be recognised as anatta. And annoyance and anger won't even enter into equation anymore. Hence akusala tendencies are getting diminished. (Simplified example, but I hope you see what I'm getting at?) However, if nobody told me that thinking is a dhamma (something that can be known), I'd still be stuck in the story about RobE and his long posts and get all annoyed about it. > > > > > pt: Anyway, then below it seems you are having a discussion with your dsg alter-ego, so it seems pointless to intrude on the dialogue other than to indicate portions which might be discussed later: > > > > RE: Yes, dsg has given me a kind of schizophrenia. I apologize for talking to myself in the middle of my post to you, or whatever. > > pt: Well, my statement referred to your arguing against points that I never raised, nor necessarily disagreed with. So I couldn't see what was it other than talking to yourself. Which is alright, we all sometimes need to put our thought on paper to help us make sense of them... Though you really have a lot of them. > > > RE: Yeah, well I really wasn't talking to myself, pt. I was discussing the difference between what is actually experienced and what one "thinks" is being experienced. And "you" was meant to stand in for "one," anyone, even me, master strawman-maker, or you, adherent to dhamma theory, or whoever. All the above was a further extrapolation of what I said earlier and the same explanation can be used, so I'll repeat it, hopefully handling all your question marks at once: > > > "I was saying that you see a person and of course you apprehend them as such - this is Rob E. who is a master strawman-maker. But according to dhamma theory Rob e. does not exist as a person as such - that is understood to be a concept. So you are at odds with your own natural perception. You see Rob E, but you think that seeing is just a conceptual construction. It takes an act of intellect to overrule your natural perception of Rob E., master strawman-maker, and to say to yourself, "He is just a concept." That is what I mean by an intellectual overlay. I hope that's more clear." > > > > So I hope that's more clear as to what I am asserting, notwithstanding the fact that you may fervently disagree with it. > > pt: I hope I explained above in the example on thinking what you are missing. > > > > > RE: So it comes down to what is the role of pariyatti? I think it's introductory, to understand what the nature of the description is, > > > > > > pt: I think pariyatti goes a lot deeper. It's far from being just theoretical/intellectual knowledge alike to memorizing a shopping list for example. > > > > Now THAT's a strawman! I never said that the value of pariyatti is memorizing a conceptual shopping list. > > pt: Yes, quite possibly a strawman, but only in a very narrow context of the above statement. If we are more observant though, you have often mentioned "intellectual" in some permutation in connection with pariyatti, which generally implies something devoid of direct experince. As in below (notice the "not in fact actually experienced"): > > > RE: I simply said that in truth it is an intellectual understanding of realities according to a very sophisticated specific philosophy that breaks realities down into very definite units, and that this very specific breakdown is not in fact actually experienced. It is known about intellectually. Is anything in the above untrue about the basic setup of pariyatti? > > pt: Yes, I think it's quite untrue, as I hope I explained a long while above, because pariayatti includes the (kusala moments) of what you called daily experiences and meditation. Thus, basically, you have essentially equated pariyatti to memorizing a shopping list when you divorced it from direct experience. Imo, of course. > > > > RE: Welcome to the strawman-making club. I see you have some natural talent in this area as well. > > pt: Thanks, though examine the pariyatti issue a bit closer if possible. > > > > In mystical lingo, I guess pariyatti would be the next best thing to experiencing dhammas directly. In abhdihamma lingo, I think pariyatti would be mind-door processes that take concepts of dhammas as objects. > > > > Right, so like I said, it's a conceptual path. And it believes in the importance of "right concept" over what it regards as "wrong experience." That is true - it's not a strawman. > > pt: Strawman aside, what the hell is a "right concept" and "wrong experience"? > > > > pt: So this would be arising I think just as the concepts of "knives and forks" are being created in the mind-door processes that closely follow the mind-door processes that have nimitta of dhamma as object. In mystical lingo that's be seeing the actual "thinking" rather than seeing "knives and forks", I guess. I'm note very good anymore with that lingo. > > > RE: Calling such descriptions mystical lingo is itself mystical lingo, just another kind. > > pt: "Mystical lingo" wasn't a derogatory term, just to indicate that it's not abhidhamma lingo, so relies on expressions that have different connotations than (often) the same abhidhamma terms. Meditators generally use that lingo, but since spending less time on such online boards, I've forgotten the specific connotations that the terms have. > > So, I'll try once again - if attention is on "knives and forks" then attention is not on thinking itself. Right? Further, while attention is on thinking, thinking can be recognised as anatta - something that arises in a conditioned way and isn't self. However, while the attention is on "knives and forks", there's no basis for the recognition of anatta and conditioned nature. You can think of what knives and forks are made of, what are they used for, etc, but usually there's no room for reflection on anatta, because, well, knives and forks are not habits and tendencies that can belong to a self. > > > > > > RE: but then one has to let that go and experience the real feeling and sight and smell of what exists, not keep thinking one's way through experience. > > > > > > pt: Assuming one could actually choose to do either, and moreover do so with a kusala citta... > > > > RE: We might have different assumptions about that possibility. > > pt: ok > > > > > > > pt: Further, there's no antagonism between concepts and dhammas. They are both essential part of the process of cognition. Hence why the only way for us to actually learn Dhamma is thanks to concepts. But when it comes to ending samsara, it will only happen when dhammas are understood. In practice, or insight in other words. > > > > > > > > RE: What will cause insight to come? What kind of practice? > > > > > > pt: I believe you discussed this with Jon many times. Hearing, considering, etc. Imo, in abhidhamma lingo, if citta is kusala, and sati and panna arise together with it (regardless of whether the object is a concept or a dhamma), that's practice/development/bhavana/meditation. But this is a post-facto statement. While it's happening, nothing I can do or not do. In fact, the whole premise of practice is misleading, because it takes away from anatta. > > > > RE: That is a specific dogma of the shared philosophy that you, Jon and others have on dsg. It is not an established truth. > > pt: Which is why there was "Imo" initially. > > > > > > RE: I think that the practice that causes awareness and understanding to develop is more experience-oriented and less intellectual. The intellect should be applied to experience in order feel, taste and smell the reality that is spoken of. > > > > > > pt: Back to strawmen eh? > > > > RE: No it's not a strawman. > > pt: :) Of course it is. You're essentially saying that I'm advocating a more intellectual and a less experience-oriented practice. I'm not, and I'd say something entirely different, if asked about practice. > > > RE: It's a comparison of study without additional practice as you just advocated above, versus purposeful practice as others here think is correct practice and which has been disputed many times in this group, and which you just dismissed above. > > pt: Which of course is another strawman. I hope I explained that the antagonism you see between the two, as well as the very existence of the two practices, is wrong. > > > RE: You actually assert what I am describing and then call it a strawman two seconds later. Not a strawman, but an actual dividing line. > > pt: I hope it's clear that the dividing line is in your head only. > > > RE: Why do you think that every characterization of dhamma philosophy I make is a strawman? I'd like to see you give the alternative rendering of what is wrong with my statement that would not be a strawman. Show me where I'm wrong according to you, instead of saying strawman over and over again. > > pt: I hope I did so far, if not, ask for more clarification. > > ... > > > > > > pt: So, as an example, that would mean that anatta nature of thinking (dhamma) about knives and forks is understood amidst the actual thinking about knives and forks. Or that concentration (dhamma) on a knife or a fork is anatta. Or that perception (dhamma) of a knife or a fork is anatta. Etc. > > > > > > > RE: Such realization would indeed be valuable. And pariyatti takes that part of the way. But the immersion in life and practice with the Dhamma as guide is what gives real flesh to this endeavor and causes real experiences to come to light. > > > > > > pt: As mentioned, not good with mystical lingo anymore. "immersion in life, flesh, endeavour". I have no idea what all that means. > > > > RE: Well I'm sorry that I can't say anything that is not in dhamma theory lingo without you seeing it as incomprehensible mystical lingo. I am saying that 'real life' is the field of the Dhamma. Hope that's more clear. In case it's not, I think the Dhamma should be realized when having a real conversation with your mother or significant other, or the testy guy on the bus, and that is has to do more with the reactions and perceptions of daily life than what we read in the commentaries. > > pt: Again, imo, the antagonism between daily life and commentaries is in your head. I wouldn't say commentaries have anything against realising dhamma while you're talking to people. > > > > > > > pt: However, if we are just stuck thinking about whether knives and forks are exist or not, is this not just philosophying on a conceptual level (so no actual insight, towards which conceptual understanding of Dhamma should stear us)? Furthermore, is this not attanuditthi?! In other words, it's not just that we are missing the point of Dhamma, but we are actually engaging in wrong view?! > > > > > > > > RE: The question is whether that is not already taking place, whether the assertion that dhammas alone are real and that concepts cannot be the object of awareness is inherently denying the existence of knives and forks. > > > > > > pt: Strawoman, see above. > > > > RE: I think you're missing the main points of this discussion by doing that. Why not take a look at what I am saying before you jump up and label it as basically being nonsense. > > pt: Strawman refers to the alleged assertion that concepts cannot be the object of awareness. In abhidhamma lingo, the statement would read smth like - panna cannot arise with citta that has a concept as object. I don't think that's a correct statement, and I don't think anyone ever said that here (other than KenH maybe, and KenO claiming Sarah said it, while she actually didn't). Again see the few recent threads that discuss this same issue, and I think the conclusion is usually the opposite. > > > RE: You haven't answered any of these assertions that are all saying that dhamma theory is a conceptual approach to reality, and that it thus dismisses what we natively experience in life. > > pt: I hope I addressed this above, i.e. that your assumption is wrong. > > > RE: That is a real object of discussion, not a strawman, and you are missing that discussion in order to glibly label everything I say. I think it's pretty damn defensive, pt. I am challenging the dhamma philosophy, but I'm not doing it off the cuff, and I think your reaction shows that you are probably not making much contact with what I'm saying. It may be that what I'm saying is ridiculous nonsense and not worth your time, but if you're going to bother to respond to it, you may as well think about what I'm asserting and say something back. > > pt: I think I called every strawman correctly so far, no? Though I was hoping not to have to spend another 4 hours on explaining why those were strawmen, i.e. was hoping you'd consider it yourself maybe. > > > > > > RE: It is my view that Right View is not to deny physical or conventional existence, but to see that it has both a conventional and expanded aspect that can be understood, and that both are part of its actuality, to be further understood and detached from. > > > > > > pt: Taking your words on their best merit, I'd agree, though I can't be sure what you mean by "both a conventional and expanded aspect that can be understood, and that both are part of its actuality,". I'm hoping what you're saying is the same as the cognition process I outlined above according to ACMA. > > > > RE: I am including what folks here call "concepts" as part of the path. > > pt: I have no problem with that, as long as it is not classified as path moment. > > Best wishes > pt > #116960 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Panna with concept as object sarahprocter... Hi Phil & Lukas, --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Lukas wrote: > >P: Hi Lukas, thank you, but my question was about whether lesser panna can have concept as object. ....Doesn't panna of lesser degree understand words of tge Buddha, for example, in a way tgat does not have characteristics of dhammas as object? >L: Good question :P I think I am not able to answer that. .... S: Yes, panna can have concepts as object, as in the example you mention. In the development of samatha, for example when the Buddha's virtues or the Dhamma are the objects, these are concepts. In the development of pariyatti, concepts of dhammas as object too. Metta Sarah p.s Thx Phil for getting the trim-act together - as I'll be travelling without internet for two weeks and Jon's very busy at work, we do appreciate it when everyone helps in this regard. (hint hint Ken O!!) =============== #116961 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anagarika's precepts sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Lukas wrote: >L: True. Withount understanding, saddha may be taken for my devotion, my trust to the Dhamma. With right understanding, it can be seen as just conditioned dhamma, that have its own function only. A powerful function if we consider going on the Path. ... S: Also, there can only be the growth of saddha in the Buddha's Teachings when we understand them. This is why only the sotapanna can be said to have unshakeable saddha in the Triple Gem. ... >L: Well, is this still a tender insight, the 3rd nana? .... S: Yes, the understanding of the arising and falling away of realities is the third stage of tender insight. The deeper and more precise understanding of impermanence is the first stage of principal insight ... >L: The first one is the knowing what is mental and material, the second knows that all is conditioned, not wihout conditions, and I think maybe in such a moment the kamma law is known? What is the 3rd one? .... S: 1. naama-ruupa paricchedcheda-~naa.na Panna clearly understands the distinction between nama and rupa 2. paccaya-pariggaha-~naana Panna clearly understands the conditioned nature of dhammas. The anatta nature of dhammas is seen more clearly 3. sammasana ~naa.na Panna understands ‘groups’ by understanding the succession of namas and rupas arising and falling away.“Sammasana is derived from sammasati, to grasp, to know thoroughly.” see more under "Stages of Insight" in Sujin's "Survey of Paramattha Dhammas". I think that the understanding of kamma and vipaka grows with the understanding of realities and their conditioned nature as you suggest. However, I've heard K.Sujin say that kamma is only really understood at the third stage when there is a beginning of understanding of the rising and falling away of dhammas. People outside the dispensation can have some conceptual understanding of kamma, but it's not the understanding of dhammas as kamma and vipaka - dhammas which are anatta. .... >> S:p.s I'll be going to England on Thursday for 2 wks and will have very limited internet at my mother's cottage in the countryside. ... >L: This is really close and cheap to Poland from London, Sarah. You and Jon are always welcome. Visit of a wise friends would be of great benefit to me. ... S: Many thx, Lukas, that would have been nice. However, I'll be so very busy that I won't even have time to get to London, let alone further afield! I'll just be in the countryside with family for my nephew's wedding and some old friends are also coming down to visit me, inc. Alan Weller on Sun afternoon. Jon will be staying in Hong Kong, so send him any questions! Metta Sarah ======= #116962 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:26 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Mon, 22/8/11, upasaka@... wrote: >t is an "urging" reminder that now there are only conditioned namas and rupas arising and falling away and that at this moment there can be an understanding of the real world appearing now. It is not an urging of "intentional action", as I understand. --------------------------------------------------- >HCW: Then the word 'urging' should not be part of your vocabulary. ;-) Synonyms for 'urge' are 'egg (on)', 'encourage', 'exhort', 'goad', 'nudge', 'press', 'prod', and 'prompt'. -------------------------------------------------- S: Yes, 'urging' is not usually a word I use - I think we started quoting from a sutta translation, forget now. 'Exhort'. 'encourage' Ok, but still everyone will understand the words according to their understanding of dhammas. Metta Sarah p.s Thx for your assistance and good humour with Rob E's 'wholes'. Short-hand only as you say. Some other parts were controversial as you sensed:-) Another time. ========= #116963 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! sarahprocter... Hi Pt (& Phil), --- On Tue, 2/8/11, ptaus1 wrote: >> S: "conditioned by kamma and accumultions" in the sense that they are the accumulated tendencies to what is experienced through the senses, the result of kamma. >Pt:In terms of kamma and tendencies, how about strong attachment between two people - it seems that this would depend on accumulations in sanna as much as on lobha? Especially if the two people have met in recent previous lives, there'd be pre-conditions for strong dis/like due to sanna, no? Of course, most of it with concepts as objects, I'd think. .... S: Just like now - we associate again and again with those we like or share common interests with. As you say, accumulated lobha, sanna, vitakka and so on. We see small children, even identical twins with different interests, different likes from the start. Some like red, some like blue. ... >In fact, now that I think about it, there's a sutta where the Buddha advises a couple on how to get reborn together again or smth like that. Not sure how collective rebirth exactly fits in with kamma and tendencies? .... S: Going to England reminds me that when Jon and I got married in England (30 yrs ago), Ven Saddhatissa gave us a blessing at the Chiswick vihara and quoted this sutta (from AN) as part of his talk. Again, like now - the virtuous are attracted to spend time with others who are virtuous. The wise seek out the company of the wise and of course, the not-so-virtuous go partying with the not-so-virtuous. So just as we come together with each other here, through a common appreciation of the Dhamma, so in other lives, we (or the cittas) will associate with others reborn according to kamma in the same realm and associate according to our interests. I read the sutta in the light of dhammas and cittas. There will be no remembering in the next life who our dhamma companions or loved ones were in this life, just as there's no memory in this life of who we associated with in the last life. I understand the Buddha to be talking about general tendencies, not literal couples who will live together in the next life due to the same kamma! ... Metta Sarah p.s sorry for delay - just found some more posts that had got 'buried'...Anyway, about to have a paper-less two wks, you'll be glad to hear! ========== #116964 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... part 2 Dear Rob E, I think Pt will be able to help with any unanswered qus if you don't completely exhaust the poor guy. I think poor Sukin must still be recovering...:-) 1. There is no table!!! 2. Yes, it's really true that there can only be the experience of one world, one universe, through one door-way at a time. As Ven Samahita quoted: "One should dwell like the snake, which sees the mouse hide in ant-hill with six openings! By lying rolled up on the anthill - constantly watching - the snake remains on the thought: Out of which hole may this mouse appear ?! Even so one thinks: Through which sense door may the next contact appear ?! Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 35:132 IV 117-21" 3. Yes, one citta at a time and an "orderly succession" of them as you mention. See more under "process" or vithi in U.P. It was all proven by the Buddha, his disciples and developing panna. Even now, when there is a moment of awareness of a reality, it's clear that there cannot be seeing and hearing at the same time. 4. The Buddha talks about the different sense doors, the different worlds to be known. He also talks about how there is nothing as fast as a citta and how no simile can do it justice. Like the monkey leaping from tree to tree, the cittas run from one object to another through different doorways. 5. Commentaries, sub-commentaries - for those who find them helpful - again, for me, it comes down to the understanding at the present moment. 6. Anicca, dukkha and anatta - these refer to the nature of dhammas, not to bodies and tables. As the Buddha said repeatedly in the suttas, seeing is impermanent, form (visible object) is impermanent, contact.....etc Not bodies and tables. See U.P. under "impermanence". Ok, out of time.....I'll just re-quote the following from Jon's message: >J: To my understanding, the teaching on paramattha dhammas explains the truth and actuality of the present moment, and how a direct understanding of that may lead to release from samsara. It does not accord specific status to anything that is not capable of being directly experienced (this would include actions occurring over time and presumed objects), as it is only that which can be directly experienced that can be the field for the development of insight.< I look f/w to chatting to you and everyone else when I return. Pls keep testing everyone's patience and good humour in the mean-time. Metta Sarah p.s If you and Pt write really long posts, you might like to break them up into smaller posts to increase your readership:-) ========= #116965 From: "philip" Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Panna with concept as object philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks for the clarification. Wishing you a happy trip, needless to say I can relate to trips back home to cottage country. I hope you get in some croquet and cucumber finger sandwiches. You know, I'm feeling very grateful to you, partly because of your recent strong support re the married woman, but also because of the role you have played in the development of my understanding of Dhamma. When I was flitting around from online group to online group back in 2004 and posted a question about the paramis at DSG, only you answered, in your diligent catching-up-on-a-backlog-a-few-days-later way. If you hadn't I might have missed out on DSG and probably Abhidhamma. Today I am enjoying a quiet day at home readind ADL out loud. What a treasure it is to know about Abhidhamma, very grateful. Still think there is a lot of finding pkeasure in all this, but "lobha will come more and more for panna to see" (a.s) Metta, Phil #116966 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Panna with concept as object sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, Thx a lot for your friendly good wishes. I feel a little nervous as I do my checks - I haven't been to England for several years. All just thinking... As I look out of my window in Hong Kong, I can see probably close to a hundred high-rise buildings, all over 50 storeys, many over 100 storeys. Bright lights everywhere. In my mother's National Trust village, most the cottages, like hers, are over 200 years old with beautiful open gardens. Just like an Agatha Christie village, if you've ever seen the Miss Marple series. The people seem very different too - but Chinese, English, just the same problems in life - lobha, dosa, moha regardless. And all our fantasies about buildings, people and cucumber sandwiches are just the conjuring trick of citta now. Nothing so variagated as the nature of cittas indeed. I'm also very grateful for your helpful and challenging posts too, your careful reflection on what is said and all your good humour. Yes, lobha at every turn as you rightly stress, even when reading the Abhidhamma now. Good quote: "lobha will come more and more for panna to see". No need to be discouraged by lobha - it can be known only when it arises. In cittanupassana, the first kind of citta mentioned as object of satipatthana is citta with lobha. Just dhammas rolling on.... I'll be reading all posts while I'm away and if I'm unable to reply, will certainly do on my return in my "diligent catching-up-on-a-backlog-a-few-days-later way" - just, it might be a little more than a few days:-)) Thx again, Phil! Be Good!!!!! BE Good!! BE GOOD!! Metta Sarah --- On Wed, 24/8/11, philip wrote: Thanks for the clarification. Wishing you a happy trip, needless to say I can relate to trips back home to cottage country. <.....> #116967 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:44 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Phil) - In a message dated 8/23/2011 9:02:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Buddha taught that experiences both inner and outer are "not-self" because they are unsatisfying, temporary, not subject to control and give rise to clinging, craving and aversion. He did not teach that they were unreal, but that they were just shifting heaps of stuff that is constantly changing - the kandhas; and that as such they represented impersonal processes. ============================= Robert, I think this is *very* well stated! (I think more in terms of shifting heaps of "events" rather than of "stuff", but that is a quibble.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116968 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 8/23/2011 9:14:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: When the Buddha says "strive with all your might" > or something to that effect, your view of the Abhidhamma's standpoint on > this is to say that it does not really mean that, but rather means to attend > the arising of momentary dhammas, and that volition is an arising dhamma > not something to be exercised as the Buddha's words would seem to indicate. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Striving is intentional expenditure of effort and energy directed > toward a goal. It is something that occurs due to conditions and is not the > action of an agent-entity. Striving "with all one's might" is a matter of the > effort being very strong and the intention towards that effort being very > strong. Being advised to "strive with all one's might" is a condition for > thinking in that direction, and thinking that concludes the advisability of > doing so conditions the strong intention needed and the consequent effort. > So, the "personal" terminology does come down to impersonal qualities and > operations, does it not? There is no actual "actor" involved, is there? > -------------------------------------------------- Well I think that's the point. You may get the wrong idea about what I am defending. What I am saying is when the Buddha says to do that 'just go with it,' don't think 'he didn't mean it and so I shouldn't practice, just wait for the dhammas to arise.' I think that if one has the impetus to practice then the conditions that you describe have been met and that this allows the practice to take place. If competing thoughts arise that say "oh no Buddha didn't mean that so i should stop that" then that is wrong view and it stops the natural action of practice. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: I quite agree. Realizing what actually happens isn't an instruction to not exert wholesome intention! ------------------------------------------------ The Buddha's Dhamma does in fact naturally lead to practice of various kinds for those who have the accumulations to be activated by that message. Yes it's impersonal but it's also subject to interpetation, and my view is that the 'non-volitional-practice' interpretation is wrong. Every skill is conditioned both by practice and some kind of teaching and feedback and the skills of mindfulness and samatha that lead to insight and satipatthana are no different. Buddha's teaching starts the ball rolling and then practice leads to further experiences that verify the Buddha's teaching. And so that process should be allowed to go forward not inhibited. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yep! -------------------------------------------------- I hope that is a little more clear. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Quite clear. --------------------------------------------- > So, in my view, it seems to often be a *choice* between the sutta's way of > speaking of the path and the Abhidhamma & commentaries way of speaking of > the path, rather than some form of overall consistency between the two. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > But two different ways of speaking doesn't, in and of itself, imply > inconsistency, does it? One simply explains the other with a terminology > emphasizing the impersonal/anatta aspect of things. > ----------------------------------------------- That is fine as long as one learns those details from it and all the good things that one can get from that view without drawing the wrong conclusions from it - that wrong view being that the complex understanding of how dhammas and conditions operate can substitute for practice in creating the conditions for development of the enlightenment factors. -------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. The matter of impersonality is like a snake that can be rightly or wrongly grasped. Rightly grasped, the snake can be milked for venom useful for curative purposes, but wrongly grasped, the serpent can turn and bite one, injecting poison. -------------------------------------------- I know that some will say this is a straw man, but that is what is often at play - a belief that just understanding the Dhamma and waiting for various moments of bhavana to arise all by themselves is an adequate activation of the path. The commentaries that seem to discourage practice or that interpret the Buddha and Vism as saying that one shouldn't do precisely what they encourage to be done - seek a teacher, practice diligently, develop mindfulness through countings, breathings, attending to the four foundations, use jhana as a way to calm and center the mind so that insight may use the subtle state as object of insight, etc ., are giving wrong interpretations of the teachings. Best, Rob E. ============================== With metta, Howard Directed, Intentional Effort "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' "Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" " _AN 2.19_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.019.than.html) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into _right view_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/index.html) : This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into _right resolve_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sankappo/index.htm\ l) : This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into _right speech_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/index.html) : This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into _right action_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-kammanto/index.htm\ l) : This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into _right livelihood_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/index.html ) : This is one's right effort." " _MN 117_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html) #116969 From: "philip" Date: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Panna with concept as object philofillet Hi again Sarah and all A correction to this quote: --- Still think there is a lot of finding pkeasure in all this, but "lobha will come more and more for panna to see" Should be "lobha will come and come for panna to see." True, there might appear to be more and more lobha as awareness of it develops. Metta, Phil p.s I am pretty confident there will be a prevailing of GOOD :) But Mara's army is mighty....skirmishes have been won, but the battle rages on, not to mention the war... #116970 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:51 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > I'm getting very short of time before my trip to England, so will attempt to extract qus from several of your posts, especially on rupas and see how it goes. Many thx for all your other reflections. (Meanwhile I note that Pt's train journeys must be going really quickly these days:-)) Phil, we'd better do the trimming for you until you work out how the iphone does it....!!) > ***** I appreciate the effort to reply while on the run. Enjoy England! That sounds like a change of pace. I'm afraid pt may have joined the group at dsg that is driven to distraction by my long-winded posts. :-) > 1.Practice - we continue to disagree on what the Teachings mean by practice. Lots more in U.P. Yes, most likely we will continue to disagree on practice for a while longer. Though you know a lot more than I do, I can't help but retain my own opinion. :-( > 2.Brains and bodies - cannot be seen, heard, tasted or touched - only thought about! Only seven rupas experienced through the 5 sense doors. The question is whether the understandings of the "conglomerated rupas" formed by sanna, etc., while not directly experienced, have any degree of accuracy as to how the rupas "line up" and what they represent. Perhaps that question is outside the scope of the experiential focus of Buddhism. Even Kant said that we can't know "whole objects" directly, but only aspects from which we derive the conceptual understanding of the object, as he called it, "in itself." Rupas that arise which we do not apprehend, but are said to exist anyway, or sort of in this category, "in-itselfs" that we cannot see but assume to exist based on theory. > 3. "Do purposeful physical and mental activities have a positive effect on spiritual development?" you ask. Only right understanding and associated mental factors leads to "positive" "spiritual development" - samatha and vipassana bhavana. Yes, the question remains, does the "right form of concerted practice," the "right form of effort" associated with arising volitions, as embodied in statements of the Buddha such as "strive unceasingly..." etc., lead to the arising of such kusala understandings and mental factors. My view as you know is that Buddha not only said "yes" to such practice, but also directly admonished his followers to engage in such practice. Of course we disagree on this, as do all those who see meditation - formal meditation - as a most important part of the path, and not an impediment which leads to increased "self-view," & "wrong view" about the path. > 4. You ask about "disassociated" "color" or "hardness" that is "not attached to a tree or a table" and whether they show up "one at a time". > What we take for a tree or a table is a concept. In fact there are a mass of different kalapas (groups) or rupas arising and falling away. What is important for our purposes is that at any moment of seeing or touching, visible object or colour is seen and tangible object is experienced through the body-sense. In fact that colour or that tangible object (i.e temperature, solidity or pressure) arise in one of those kalapas, but only one rupa can be experienced (and known) at a time. Because of the experience of multiple rupas through different doorways, sanna (memory/perception) recognises what is experienced by marking the objects. Through the mind door there is thinking about the objects, more sanna, more marking, more remembering of trees and tables, usually with ignorance. Any idea of where these rupas come from? Are they part of conditionality that is not tied to experience but to other factors that form up the experienceable universe? Does the samsaric universe include arisings of the 4 great elements that have no direct relation to experience of sentient beings except that sentient beings happen to apprehend the part of the flow that arises for the sense-doors, and otherwise continues to arise independently of sentient beings? And if so, do rupic arisings continue to flow in samsara even after sentient beings have all been delivered from delusion? And if that is the case, does the universe have an existence outside of delusion, or is the universe a product of delusion? If it is a product of delusion, then it should cease when delusions of consciousness have ceased, and in that case even the rupas that we do not apprehend would be dependent on consciousness and in that case should not exist when they do not arise for citta. Another way of asking this would be to ask, do the 4 great elements ever reach a resolution and stop arising, going back to total stillness and non-differentiation? Do they have any equivalent to parinibbana, or do they just keep on flowing...? > 5. You ask if "anyone has ever experienced "hardness" without "smoothness" without "texture" and so on. Good question. What is experienced through the body-sense is that tangible object just as it is. We might call it "hardness" for short, but as you say, it is that particular characteristic of solidity with texture - no need to name it. What is experienced is the rupa. I think my question is whether single qualities are really experienced separately. Do we feel hardness first and then feel smoothness immediately after, or do we experience them together? I know your answer would be separately, one moment apiece - just not sure about it myself. But what you said about the particularity of the experience was interesting too. Do hardnesses vary in kind depending on whether it is a "mahogony-type" hardness or a "metal-type" hardness, and how do those rupas arise in differentiation - is it because of their particular mixture of the 4 Elements? > 6. Back to the "stitches" and the conceptual image of a "table" and more good qus. Yes, that means there really is no "physical table", just various elements arising and falling away. Of course, the rupas experienced when seeing the visible object or touching the tangible object which we call table are different from those which we call computer. Otherwise, sanna would not mark and differentiate, leading to different concepts. A blind person can tell you just through the different tactile experiences that they are not the same, but there is no understanding of the rupas as just those elements experienced through the body-sense. Okay, so if there is no physical table, then we are living in an illusory physical universe that has no food, no bodies, no tables - none of the activities that we think are taking place. Just want to finally check and see if this is your view - no physical activities actually take place as there are no "whole" physical objects to do with them. It is all a kind of hallucination formed by various physical-quality experiences that arise and are stitched together. To be clear, you would be saying that all supposed physical activities like driving a car, getting hit by a car, etc., only take place in *consciousness.* There is no "physical world" in which they take place. Would that be literally correct? That would also mean that physical birth and death also only take place in consciousness. They are experienced by citta but they are events in mind, not in "the world." Conclusion: there is no universe per se, just an experiential invention of deluded citta. Correct? > 7. On wholes - a concept - no wholes! Just elements - this is not some later "philosophy" but 101 as taught by the Buddha in the suttas too. See "Elements" in U.P. Rupas, physical elements, as experienced. They always arise in a group of at least 8 rupas. (Read Nina's book on Rupas if you have time.) Rupas still arise and fall away even when not experienced. However, the world to be known is the world that is experienced - one world at a time through one door-way. You ask where "hardness" lives when not touched. It (the pathavi dhatu or earth element), just arises and falls away as normal. And I take it that there is no physical "place" from which it arises and recedes. That would suggest that it is arising and receding for consciousness only, which would cause a small problem when we posit rupas that arise but are not experienced. Where are they taking place if not in consciousness, and if there is no world in which they exist? > What we call the "universe" is made up of such rupas arising and falling away all the time. Hope the meaning of this can be clarified per my questions above. > OK, that's it for now - I have to go to the bank. Yes, I was a little optimistic to think I could respond to all your posts in one go, just as Pt was probably a little optimistic thinking that one long train journey to work would do the job:-) Yes, I think it takes great optimism to think that any of these issues can be resolved in a reasonable period of time. But it's quite brave to keep trying. > Hopefully there'll be a part 2 tomorrow. I know you'll understand that further replies to your replies will have to wait until my return in Sept. "No rush," as always. :-))) > Meanwhile, excellent points you raise for discussion. Others may be able to help too. :-) > p.s my mother told me on the phone that she'd already bought in some green tea - but with lemon.... we'll see how that is! > ======= Well, green tea with lemon is better than no green tea at all! I'm sure it will be tasty. Have fun. When we were last in London - too long ago - we really had a fun time in the tea shops. There's nothing like the London tea shops for having a great selection. Hope you have a fine time! Best, Rob Ep. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #116971 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhas instruction in the suttas truth_aerator Hi Phil, all, >P:Is it really helpful to sit and think "all right, I'm going to >practice the four right efforts now." >============================================================ Maybe one shouldn't think, but actually do it, little by little at first? It is like with a new scrawny person joining the gym. He may not be able to lift 500 pounds any time soon. But if he practices little by little, does everything right, eventually he might. If he never practices, eats right, recovers right, etc, then he will never set up the right conditions for success. I often hear about "when the conditions are right it will arise". But for some reasons I do not hear about the very conditions necessary for such and such factor to arise in the first place. Furthermore I hear, not just here, about "don't desire awakening". But what do the suttas say? Ven. Analaya in Satipatthana Commentary stated this. At S V 272, Ananda countered the proposal that to overcome desire using desire would be a task without end with the argument that the desire for realization will automatically subside once realization is gained. Similarly, according to A 11 145, it is on the basis of "craving" (for the destruction of the influxes) that craving (in general) will be overcome. Also Sn 365, where the Buddha spoke approvingly of someone longing to attain nibbana. The importance of "desire" as an aspect of the path leading to realization is also exemplified in the canonical presentation of the four roads to power (iddhipadda), one of which is desire (chanda). >================================================== Lets not forget 4 right efforts and iddhipadas as being factors for the path. IMHO, With best wishes, Alex #116972 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:04 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > Thanks for the msg, will read later, but I can see from a quick read of the beginning (I expect to reach the end sometime next week) I misunderstood your view on the personality, thankfully ;) :-) Doesn't mean I'm not "attached" to the old self-view, but I at least have a half-baked pariyatti understanding of what it's s'posed to be. I think the real controversy, within that, is whether the personality structures are the "vehicle" of the path, and whether all the conventional things we do, kusala or akusala, affect development. I think you've come down on my side of that, put a different way, in the past, but not 100% sure. I'll look forward to your response to the whole other post when you get a chance. > p.s mods, I at least learned how to cut an entire post, selective cut and paste ability may follow! I wish I had an iphone... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #116973 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:09 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Phil) - > > In a message dated 8/23/2011 9:02:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Buddha taught that experiences both inner and outer are "not-self" because > they are unsatisfying, temporary, not subject to control and give rise to > clinging, craving and aversion. He did not teach that they were unreal, > but that they were just shifting heaps of stuff that is constantly changing - > the kandhas; and that as such they represented impersonal processes. > ============================= > Robert, I think this is *very* well stated! (I think more in terms of > shifting heaps of "events" rather than of "stuff", but that is a quibble.) Thanks, Howard. There are moments of written clarity when I put things *almost* the right way, so we can acknowledge our basic concordance on such a view. I think your 'events' instead of 'stuff' is probably a good correction, but I will think about it some more. I see structure being temporarily formed within the kandhas as they "shift," just as in a shifting kaleidoscope one can see momentary objects forming and different geometrical shapes before they move on to new shifting formations, so "stuff" acknowledges those temporary structures that are created, but of course those too are caused by events so the event-ness of the shifting forms is primary, and the structure that is created in passing is secondary. Perhaps shifting stuff-events would work.....? Or shifting 'event-stuff' would be even more accurate... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #116974 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > -------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Yes. The matter of impersonality is like a snake that can be rightly > or wrongly grasped. Rightly grasped, the snake can be milked for venom > useful for curative purposes, but wrongly grasped, the serpent can turn and bite > one, injecting poison. > -------------------------------------------- That is a good metaphor for this. ===================== > Directed, Intentional Effort > > > "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is > unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not > say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to > abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If > this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would > not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning > of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, > 'Abandon what is unskillful.' > "Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is > skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to > you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop > what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development > of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to > you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is > skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is > skillful.'" > " _AN 2.19_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.019.than.html) > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into _right view_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/index.html) : This > is one's right effort... > "One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into _right resolve_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sankappo/index.htm\ l) > : This is one's right effort... > "One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into _right speech_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/index.html) : This > is one's right effort... > "One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into _right action_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-kammanto/index.htm\ l) : > This is one's right effort... > "One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into _right livelihood_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/index.html > ) : This is one's right effort." > " _MN 117_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html) Thanks for these references, and for your responses above. I will enjoy looking at them. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #116975 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:37 am Subject: Nina on accumulations philofillet Hi all I've been reading through the Useful Posts section in the files to read mire about accumulations, I struggle with how acculated kusala and akusala can be "in" the presently arisen citta. Still want to read more before discussing, but I found thi below old post from Nina very helpful, I think accumulated "in the stream of cittas" might be easier to understand than "in the citta" but that is a premature conclusion, just a hunch. Here's Nina: > > Akusala and kusala citta arise because of the accumulation of our kusala and > > akusala before, which accummulated too in their cetasikas respectively, > > isn't it? > N: I think it is more complex. Suppose someone in your group listened to > Dhamma. Before he was very impatient with his parents but he learnt the > difference between kusala and akusala. He found out by experience that the > citta with dosa is so hard, so rigid, and the citta with metta is gentle and > tender. He listened to the Dhamma and what is learnt is never lost. He > started to have more moments of metta so that it became a habit. But > sometimes the test of his patience was too severe and the object at such > moments were just right for his accumulated dosa. > We cannot pinpoint exactly how accumulations work, but we know that > inclinations and habits we had in the past can appear at the present time. > Each citta is succeeded by a following citta and thus in this stream of > cittas going on from life to life, all good and bad inclinations are carried > on from the past to the present and to the future. When metta arises now > this is accumulated, it is adosa cetasika, non-hate. > I am not inclined to say, dosa is accumulated in dosa cetasika. I rather > think of this stream of cittas, no matter by which cetasikas they are > accompanied. Each moment citta is accompanied by different kinds of > cetasikas and a different number of cetasikas. Also seeing is part of the > stream, and this is not accompanied by sobhana cetasikas or akusala > cetasikas. But still, it is also part of the stream of cittas which contain > all accumulations. > When we consider accumulations more, we can also understand that panna which > is intellectual understanding can grow by listening more to the Dhamma. We > can understand that it can develop and reach the level of direct > understanding of realities. One short moment of direct awareness and > understanding seems so slight, even insignificant. But it is accumulated and > it can develop because of its own conditions. We may wonder how. The process > of accumulation is very complex, but it works. We can notice it in our life. > Nina. > #116976 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhas instruction in the suttas philofillet Hi Alex and all > >P:Is it really helpful to sit and think "all right, I'm going to >practice the four right efforts now." > >============================================================ > > Maybe one shouldn't think, but actually do it, little by little at first? Ph: Yes, I agree. I thinj at thus point I disagree with those who say that experimenting with various meditation techniques and any other intentiinal practices will lead to "going terribly wrong" (it could if one becomes an irretractable devotee of a modern guru such as Goenka) and it is wise to confirm to just what degree meditation techniques do or don't assist the four right efforts, for example. In my case, meditatiin is helpful in making it clearer to what extent (almist entirely, I think) tge efforts arise in a conditioned way, completely beyond control. And I encourage you to meditatw more, Alex. I can't imagine your health problems would be a total obstacle to some meditation. I guess it's because you feel meditation is tge path to awakeninf now (or soon) so place high standards ob what it involves. ( E.g that severe phrase the Buddha uses about not getting up from meditation until xxxx I forget.). For me, meditation is good for seeing what defilements are more active at different times, and by developing a sammatha topic (rather dubious one since it doesb't appear exactly in Visn) there is the development of a kind of bright body of tranquility that provides an abide to take refuge during the day. Ir's pribanky rooted in lobha most of the time, but I am aware if thus so not much danger of gounf "terribly wrong." > It is like with a new scrawny person joining the gym. He may not be able to lift 500 pounds any time soon. But if he practices little by little, does everything right, eventually he might. If he never practices, eats right, recovers right, etc, then he will never set up the right conditions for success. > > I often hear about "when the conditions are right it will arise". But for some reasons I do not hear about the very conditions necessary for such and such factor to arise in the first place. Ph: I agree that there are some forms of conventional behaviour such as seeking physical seclusion or recollecting asubha or ageing illness death etc in conventiinal terms that may (no guarantees, it's not clockwork) provide helpful conditions and they are underappreciated here. As for the gym metaphior, I don't think it can go too far, rge development of kusala is much subtler than the direct and simple cause and effect relationship between pumping iron and putting in myscle. Pribably practicing a musical instrument is a better metaphor... Thanks Alex. Now go do some meditating! Metta, Phil > > Furthermore I hear, not just here, about "don't desire awakening". But what do the suttas say? > > > Ven. Analaya in Satipatthana Commentary stated this. > At S V 272, Ananda countered the proposal that to overcome desire using desire would be a task without end with the argument that the desire for realization will automatically subside once realization is gained. Similarly, according to A 11 145, it is on the basis of "craving" (for the destruction of the influxes) that craving (in general) will be overcome. Also Sn 365, where the Buddha spoke approvingly of someone longing to attain nibbana. The importance of "desire" as an aspect of the path leading to realization is also exemplified in the canonical presentation of the four roads to power (iddhipadda), one of which is desire (chanda). > >================================================== > > > Lets not forget 4 right efforts and iddhipadas as being factors for the path. > > IMHO, > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #116977 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:14 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) philofillet Hi Rob E Thanks for your post, back to you on Saturday, on the computer. > I wish I had an iphone... Well, they are great. Especially tge typos from tge tiny keys, see my post to Alex. Probably became prubinky or something lije rhat. Bit great hiw sanna and punna can work our typos, eh? Metta, Phil #116978 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:07 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > part 2 > > Dear Rob E, > > I think Pt will be able to help with any unanswered qus if you don't completely exhaust the poor guy. I think poor Sukin must still be recovering...:-) Hm...I think there must be some good psychic stuff going on, because I instinctively started re-answering the last post in "chunks." I have put one chunk out there, and if it is not too exhausting I will go on to the next "chunk" of the message. pt did a good job exhausting me by matching my original long post with an even longer reply, so I think we may be evenly matched. Maybe the "chunking" will help. > > 1. There is no table!!! Got it - no table. The problem is that there are still a couple of ways to interpret that, so I've been looking for a more precise idea of what *does* exist. I know the individual rupas arise, that's great. It now looks like there is 'no table or anything like it' period, and that is pretty radical if that is the case. However, it begs the question of why these patterns of rupas arise in good order that so easily are assembled into these very sensible false objects, such as tables, bodies - complete with hearts and digestive tracts, etc. - and varieties of fruit that all bear certain similarities and differences, etc. Is there a good explanation for what these orderly sets of 'non-object' rupas are doing arising in such sensible and convenient order? > 2. Yes, it's really true that there can only be the experience of one world, one universe, through one door-way at a time. As Ven Samahita quoted: > > "One should dwell like the snake, which sees the mouse hide in ant-hill with six openings! By lying rolled up on the anthill - constantly watching - the snake remains on the thought: Out of which hole may this mouse appear ?! Even so one thinks: Through which sense door may the next contact appear ?! Good one! > Source: > The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 35:132 IV 117-21" > > 3. Yes, one citta at a time and an "orderly succession" of them as you mention. See more under "process" or vithi in U.P. It was all proven by the Buddha, his disciples and developing panna. Even now, when there is a moment of awareness of a reality, it's clear that there cannot be seeing and hearing at the same time. > > 4. The Buddha talks about the different sense doors, the different worlds to be known. He also talks about how there is nothing as fast as a citta and how no simile can do it justice. Like the monkey leaping from tree to tree, the cittas run from one object to another through different doorways. > > 5. Commentaries, sub-commentaries - for those who find them helpful - again, for me, it comes down to the understanding at the present moment. How does the understanding of the arising of dhammas come into play [in the present moment.' Is there a way in which these arisings hit you because of what you have known and considered? pt spoke about a gradual inclination to look at the nama that arises in reaction to something as opposed to getting caught on the original object or situation one reacts to, and so the view goes more deeply towards what is happening at the successive moment instead of dwelling on a past moment - if I am making clear what I mean. I found that very interesting - I think it's due for the next "chunk" when I reply. :-) So if that is the case that would have a very practical import right here in the present life. If one realizes that negative vedana has arisen in response to "unpleasant sense object," such as reading a convoluted part of one of Rob E.'s posts, and one's attention is drawn to the nature of the vedana as it arises instead of being caught on the original annoying stimulus, that is a real advance in equanimity and awareness. One would be less inclined to produce proliferations on top of the vedana and instead would focus with more awareness. And this could become a natural tendency... > 6. Anicca, dukkha and anatta - these refer to the nature of dhammas, not to bodies and tables. As the Buddha said repeatedly in the suttas, seeing is impermanent, form (visible object) is impermanent, contact.....etc > Not bodies and tables. See U.P. under "impermanence". That's a sticky point. So many times we really experience reactivity in response to the conventional objects which we cling to. I find it hard to see how looking at that is not useful, or that the awareness of that clinging, even though imprecise as to the arising dhamma, is not helpful. > Ok, out of time.....I'll just re-quote the following from Jon's message: > > >J: To my understanding, the teaching on paramattha dhammas explains the truth and actuality of the present moment, and how a direct understanding of that may lead to release from samsara. It does not accord specific status to anything that is not capable of being directly experienced (this would include actions occurring over time and presumed objects), as it is only that which can be directly experienced that can be the field for the development of insight.< I have a hard time with that, not the statement itself, but the exclusivity as regards conventional life and the clinging and craving and aversion that is quite obvious within it and clearly causes suffering. To say that this is not the real clinging and that is not the real dukkha seems to separate experience out in a way that does not serve the development of understanding and equanimity in this very life, starting from where we are. > I look f/w to chatting to you and everyone else when I return. Pls keep testing everyone's patience and good humour in the mean-time. Thanks Sarah! I'm sure I will! And do have a great time on your trip. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #116979 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:10 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > > Hi Rob E > > Thanks for your post, back to you on Saturday, on the computer. > > > I wish I had an iphone... > > > Well, they are great. Especially tge typos from tge tiny keys, see my post to Alex. Probably became prubinky or something lije rhat. Bit great hiw sanna and punna can work our typos, eh? Ha ha, yes it read pretty well - other than making my eyes cross while "sanna" was figuring it out. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #116980 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:21 pm Subject: Re: KENs theories: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: When religions talk about an eternal soul aren't they talking about something that *owns and controls* consciousness? I don't think they are necessarily talking about consciousness itself. pt: I think it's sort of like what you write below. That's how it is for me at least. > KH: I think I see what you are saying: consciousness *can* be seen as something permanent. And so, different states of consciousness (happy, sad etc) can be seen as one permanent consciousness doing different things at different times. I had forgotten that aspect of it. Best wishes pt #116981 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! ptaus1 Hi Phil, >Ph: p.s Is your name pronounced "putuu" or "putee?" : ) People pronounce it all sorts of ways, all good. In Australia they generally say as you would the individual alphabet letters P and T. Best wishes pt #116982 From: Lukas Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:35 pm Subject: Letter to my friend in Prison szmicio Dear friends, My friend needs a mental or spiritual support. Pls, could you write a letter to him, i will translate it into Polish and send him. He's name is Lukas, He's 21 years old. He spend his young age 14 to 18 in a youth prison and he was free at the age of 18. After two weeks of freedom he was accused of robbery and was sentence for 2 years in a prison. After that he was free. Few months ago he was charged for stealing and went to prison for 5 years. Now he regrets it so much, what he did, that he hurt his girl and mom. He's really embarassed by that. And he wants to change very much himself. Now he gives all hope to buddhism and count on it. He had read some mahajana books but he didnt like them. He told me that he could not find in the books anything what pertrain to him. I think he will be enjoying the teaching of no control and not self, caouse the pertrain to his life. That's why I will be writing to him a letters that will introduce him to buddha teachings according to the Elders teachings. He is so wise guy. So please friends write to him, he will be so greatful. Sarah wrote to him once a short reminder on begin again, and he was so happy and appreciated this so much. Lukas also needs a financial support, he lives there very poor and dont have for basic hygine articles even. Money can be send to his account on prison, then the prison give him it. Best wishes Lukas #116983 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:46 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) ptaus1 Hi RobE, i just accidentaly sent this reply from my other yahoo account, not sure how it'll show up in your inbox, sorry, it'll hopefully go to spam. anyway, here's the reply from the normal account which should go to dsg list as usual > RE: Not to mention a little bit of condescension and self-righteousness here and there, such as saying "...for purposes of diplomacy...," as opposed to accuracy, over and over again, as if there is something especially nice about that. pt: Well, if i'm supposed to be accurate, then I'd just dismiss most of your statements as a strawman and leave it that, because both our understandings of the issues are probably quite flawed, so it's kind of like two blind men trying to discuss Rembrandt. Better ask questions from Sarah and others and learn something rather than just keep making statements that fly past each other. But for purposes of diplomacy - that means, ok let's waive all the flaws in our statements and try once again to resolve the issue. So, nothing nice, just persistent. > RE: "Which when understood" refers to the truth, but understanding it comes by way of hearing the description, and then through contemplating the description of reality - that is, the written scriptures - one comes to understand that reality. pt: Ok. My initial statement was quite general, so by "understanding the truth" i pretty much had in mind enlightenment, i.e. the last part of the path, whereas you preferred to consider the beginning of the path. No problems. > RE: My observation is that a lot of the time what is involved in that is in considering and discussing the description and the units of experience that it explains. That is why I said that the understanding of the truth in this approach to Dhamma is one of coming to understand the description more clearly. This may seem long-winded to you, but it's necessary in my view. If the above is true, which you may dispute or call "straw man" again if you like, then this is an intellectually-based path. The practice involved is considering the description of reality more and more closely so that one understands how realities work. I am not saying this is your view. I am saying that this is the view I am acquainted with from many conversations - that right view leads through understanding the material in the Tipitaka, at first intellectually, and that the other path factors all follow naturally from this understanding. pt: OK. In that respect - regarding the "description" issue, what would classify as understanding of the description? In other words, which i believe is the main concern of yours - is pariyatti purely intellectual, or is there something more practical to it? My take on it is like this - pariyatti happens when there is panna accompanying a citta that has a concept as object (usually a concept of a dhamma). now, what that means in normal language? Imo, it is the difference between purely intellectual path and a path that is practical (so real life, real daily experiences so to speak). If there was no panna arising, it would all be intellectual, even if one is reciting abhidhamma, or giving a lecture on how a citta conditions other cittas and cetasikas. But if there's panna, then regardless of whether one is reciting abhidhamma or he is considering the anger that arose in response to something that his mother said, it is all pariyatti in the sense that there is panna together with the citta that has a concept as the object. > RE: Except that I'm not sure to what degree our understanding of correct practice is the same. pt: Yes, though I suggest discussing that with Sarah and others as I'm not entirely sure on that issue myself. > > > RE: I think you could understand the truth as described by the Dhamma for many many lifetimes, better and better and in more detail, without creating the conditions that would lead to the ending of samsara. > > > > pt: Speculation, who knows. > > RE: The fact that it is speculative, and can't be determined in this lifetime with any certainty, is the point. pt: Well, ok, if you want to speculate in more detail, i wouldn't really agree with you. if there's panna really arising with the understanding of the description (so concepts as objects of citta), i.e. it's not purely intellectual, then panna accumulates, and that is never lost i think. otherwise there really is no difference between memorising and intellectualising abhidhamma and memorising and intellectualising a shopping list. in other words, imo, pariyatti becomes pariyatti when there's understanding of the experiences of real life (albeit with concepts as object of citta and panna) as based on what was gotten through the description of the truth. > RE: It depends on what you mean by "understanding of the truth." In what way is the truth understood to qualify as "practice" rather than conceptual knowledge? Can you say more about what the understanding consists of and how and in what way it is understood? pt: i hope I explained above - so absence/presence of panna differentiates an intellectual/philosophical understanding from a real-life understanding, even though both would have concepts as objects of citta. > RE: Except that there is a strong view among all those you have mentioned that meditation is not part of the path, does not lead to kusala cittas arising and strengthens the sense of personal self-view. pt: I'm not sure that's quite so. It's just that what they term "meditation" is different from what you term "meditation". For them, it's about kusala citta arising with panna, since that's what in essence equates to development of kusala, or bhavana (translated as meditation). kusala citta of course is not restricted to a time of the day or an activity - it can arise during a conversation with your mother just like it can arise during any other time. so, the question is then whether what you call "meditation" relates to an arising of a kusala citta, or does it relates to something else? if to something else, then what, and how does that relate to kusala citta? etc. > RE: Is that your view as well, or not? pt: yes, it's sort of like i explained above. that said, i still like to meditate when i have time, as in sit down (or rather lie down in my case) for a couple of hours and not move. but, like Phil, I'm finding this is more sort of like yoga or something, rather than some concerted effort to gain insight or smth like that. it feels very nice, relaxing and very happy, so a bit like a favorite pass time, though very time-consuming and possibly dangerous if your health is not very good (i'm not even getting into the whole wrong view thing here, i'm just referring to bad health in terms of the body, the energy channels and whatnot). > RE: The main points of dispute are: how do considerations in daily life take place - do they just arise or are they cultivated purposely? pt: Well say you just read about dosa and how destructive it is in terms of kamma and accumulations, as well as the fact that it is not-self. And then the next morning you're arguing with your mother (sorry I keep using the mother example because you mentioned in one of the posts that understanding should arise while in daily life situations while talking to your mother or smth like that), and there in the midst of the argument suddenly a recollection arises of the unwholesomness of dosa, and at that moment you really see dosa as unhelpful in that situation. that would be pariyatti i think. if dosa is also recognised as anatta, that would be patipatti i think. etc. now about cultivating purposefully - does that mean that you have to attempt to have an argument with your mother on purpose every day so that an understanding of dosa could arise? and would it? i don't think so. > RE: And: does meditation practice = bhavana, or can it? What is your view on those points? pt: assuming that by meditation you mean sitting down and doing something with your mind for two hours (some sort of technique) - i don't know. i tend to think that kusala can arise in any situation, but so can akusala. which one is arising in your case, that's what you have to figure out. > RE: The way in which you framed everyday experience of dhammas and arising of bhavana are different than I would put them. It comes down to whether they are actual practices or not, which "the many" we are talking about would say they are not. pt: yes i see the difficulty. i think it's because it's hard to swallow the argument that a practice can be all kusala, and thus reconcile it with the axiom that bhavana=kusala citta. e.g. say you meditate for 2 hours, there must be some hindrances arising from time to time, which are akusala. hence, in strict terms, you can't say that the meditation as a practice is all kusala. then you have to examine, ok, so how much of it is kusala? then you have to examine if in fact there's development of both kusala and akusala? and then when it comes to kusala, how certain are you that it's actually kusala? etc. and then in essence, the problem reduces down to a single citta - is it kusala or akusala, and how do you know it is. so sarah and nina say - only panna can know. so it seems everyone else can only warn you about the possible pitfalls, such as fooling yourself, taking akusala for kusala, etc, and then it's down to panna to hopefully see what's really going on. > RE: I am also finding the definition of pariyatti extremely flexible depending on the context. I remember being told over and over again that right view and understanding the Dhamma intellectually was pariyatti and that understanding Dhamma conceptually was necessary first before true moments of panna and mindfulness would arise in "everyday life," which would be patipatti. Patipatti = practice, and pariyatti is the understanding "of the desription" that leads to correct practice. So you seem to disagree with this and think pariyatti involves a lot more of the actual practice, the actual arising of mindfulness, understanding, etc., to whatever degree. That leaves me pretty confused between different versions of pariyatti, speaking of consistency. pt: Hm, well, maybe I'm wrong then, maybe you'd care to doublecheck with others. That's why it might be good to frame it in strict abhidhamma terminology for starters, as it is very precise, and then later on we can try and translate it into everyday language. So, my understanding is that: 1. pariyatti is the arising of panna with those cittas that have concepts as object, so not just intellectual knowledge (so concepts as objects of citta without panna). that's how i understand Nina and Sarah to often say that abhidhamma is not in the books, for example. 2. patipatti is the arising of panna with those cittas that have dhammas as objects, so there's the seeing of the characterstics of a dhamma. 3. pativeda, i'm not sure, i think this referes to supramudane moments (so nibbana as object of citta), or possibly to moments of inisght of vipassana nana strength, so still a dhamma as object of citta and panna, but with one of the nanas. I forgot what exactly is the deal there. Perhaps someone can point out if I'm mistaken somewhere there. Best wishes pt #116984 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:53 pm Subject: Wish Us Luck! :-) upasaka_howard Hi, all - Hurricane Irene which will be impacting the U.S. East coast may well make it's primary landfall late Sunday night directly on the part of Long Island where we live, and at the time that happens it will be somewhere between a powerful tropical storm and a category 1 hurricane, with sustained wind speeds I estimate somewhere between 70 mph and 75 mph . You can see this well on the U.S. national weather service map at _http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents_ (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents) In a way, this will be an "adventure" though a bit more excitement than I would hope for. ;-)) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116985 From: "azita" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:09 pm Subject: Re: Wish Us Luck! :-) gazita2002 Hallo Howard, coming from a cyclone area in australia, I do see the 'adventure and sometimes thrill' but when it hits directly where you live as it has for me on a few occasions, the aftermath is not nice. Several small towns in far north eastern Aus were literally blown away this past cyclone season. I hope this doesnt happen to you, so stay safe and yes, good luck - not much else you can wish for when its heading straight for you. Remember the dhamma:) patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > Hurricane Irene which will be impacting the U.S. East coast may well > make it's primary landfall late Sunday night directly on the part of Long > Island where we live, and at the time that happens it will be somewhere > between a powerful tropical storm and a category 1 hurricane, with sustained > wind speeds I estimate somewhere between 70 mph and 75 mph . You can see this > well on the U.S. national weather service map at > _http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents_ > (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents) > In a way, this will be an "adventure" though a bit more excitement > than I would hope for. ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard > > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #116986 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Wish Us Luck! :-) upasaka_howard Hi, Azita! Thanks so mcuh. :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/25/2011 9:09:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, gazita2002@... writes: Hallo Howard, coming from a cyclone area in australia, I do see the 'adventure and sometimes thrill' but when it hits directly where you live as it has for me on a few occasions, the aftermath is not nice. Several small towns in far north eastern Aus were literally blown away this past cyclone season. I hope this doesnt happen to you, so stay safe and yes, good luck - not much else you can wish for when its heading straight for you. Remember the dhamma:) patience, courage and good cheer azita #116987 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:36 am Subject: Rebirth-Linking Transmigration! bhikkhu5 Friends: Is consciousness moving at death to the next life? No! Since consciousness arise & cease right here, it cannot move anywhere! It is not continuous, but contiguous discrete mental states as pearls on a string. The prior moment of consciousness contains the properties that conditions the arising of the next moment of consciousness! These inherent properties are mainly craving for (conscious) sensing & craving for becoming anew into being. If these cravings are present in the rebirth-linking moment of consciousness, then the next moment of consciousness will arise immediately after the death, but now in another location and body, which qualities (or lack of) also are all conditioned by properties within the rebirth-linking moment of consciousness Example: If ignorance is dominant in the rebirth-linking moment of consciousness, then an animal rebirth is to be expected. If harmonious peace and settled mental calmness based on a long life of doing good are the dominant factors right in the rebirth-linking moment of consciousness, then a divine deva rebirth is to be expected. If anger, hostile enmity, envy and hate are dominant in the rebirth-linking moment of consciousness, a rebirth in hell is to be expected... So what actually passes on is CAUSALITY: That is conditioning factors of mental forces! Nothing more! No form, feeling, perception, construction, or consciousness passes on, or can ever endure from one moment to the next... No "Self, I, Me, Body, Identity, or Ego" passes on, because they never really existed in the first place, so how can they ever then pass on?!? The classic example is the 2 candles: Candle A is in flame. (=Dying individuality) This is then used to light or ignite Candle B (=Reborn individuality). By this very ignition the flame of Candle A is extinguished Only candle B is now burning: What now was passed on !-?-! Is the flame of Candle B now the SAME, as the flame of Candle A? Not so. Candle B burns by its own flame, but it was turned on by flame A! Is the flame of Candle B now DIFFERENT from the flame of Candle A? Not really so either. Since Candle B started burning from the flame A! What is Reborn?: Neither the SAME individuality, nor ANOTHER! What am 'I' & 'Person'?: Neither the SAME nor ANOTHER! Not a fixed entity, but a streaming process of ever renewed arisings and ceasings of impersonal mental and physical states Just moments of name- &-form passes on! In brevity: Question: What passes on at death? Answer: The forces or streams of: Ignorance, Greed, and Hate, and derivatives thereof, passes on at death and also in every moment of this life! One is reborn not only at death, but at every conscious moment of this endless life cycle itself also... Re-arising rebirth occurs billions of times per second! Neither as the same, nor as another... Regarding Buddhist Theory of Rebirth-Linking (patisandhi) see also: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/n_r/patisandhi.htm Kamma and Rebirth: Nyanatiloka Thera: http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh394.pdf Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * Rebirth-Linking Transmigration! #116988 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wish Us Luck! :-) upasaka_howard Hi, Chuck - In a message dated 8/25/2011 6:23:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhammasaro@... writes: Howdy, Wish you luck and prepare. --------------------------------------- Many thanks! :-) ------------------------------------- Earlier, when I was speaking on the phone with my sister-in-law; my son came home and told her to evacuate. As I already had made some suggestions, I said I would drop-off to let her prepare. And, to later advise me of her plans. My son is a US Coast Guard officer assigned to USCG Air Station - Elizabeth City, NC. --------------------------------------- Oh, boy! NC will probably get the brunt of this. My very best to your son & sister-in-law. Where are you located, Chuck? I guess you are also in harm's way! -------------------------------------- He returned to the base. No doubt he will stay on the base. --------------------------------------- Good. ------------------------------------- peace... metta (maitri), Chuck ============================= Thanks for writing, Chuck! With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116989 From: "philip" Date: Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:14 am Subject: Accumulations and D.O philofillet Hi all I continue to do research on "accumulations" Here is a very comprehensive post from Rob K: > > Hi Robert, > > > >> I looked up the term ayuhana in "BUDDHIST DICTIONARY Manual of > > Buddhist Terms & Doctrines" by Ven. Nyanatiloka and found: > > > > ayuhana: (karmic) 'accumulation', is a name used in the > commentarial > > literature for the wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities > > (karma, q.v.) or karma-formations (sankhara; s. paticca- > samuppada), > >___________________________ > > Dear RobM, > Thanks very much for supplying the quote from Nyanatiloka, I was > able to find it thanks to this.. > yhana (Aayuu- > hana)is fairly rare by itself in the texts but often occurs either > in the form Aayuuhana.m or as part of a complex word phrases . > > It is indeed a very useful word to understand. The Mahavagga tika > (subcommentary) to the Digha nikaya explains (I add some more to > Nyantiloka's excellent explanation): > Aayuuhana.m sampi.n.dana.m, sampayuttadhammaana.m attano > kiccaanuruupataaya raasiikara.nanti attho. > Accumulating (aayuuhana.m) is the adding together or heaping up of > its associated phenomena in accordance with its own function. (based > on a note by bodhi) > sampi.n.dana.m -adding together > rasi - heap > kicca -function > > > Here is a section from the Mahanidana sutta commentary, where > aayuhana (accumulate) occurs in complex phrases. (from bodhi The > great discourse on causationp65)about Paticcasamupadda: > Deep is the meaning of volitional formations as volitionally > forming, ACCUMULATING, lustfulness, and lustlessness. > gambhiiro, sa"nkhaaraana.m > abhisa"nkhara.nAAYUUHANAsaraagaviraaga.t.tho > and > > [the meaning] of existence as ACCUMULATING, volitionally forming, > and throwing beings into the different modes of origin > bhavassa aayuuhanaabhisa"nkhara.nayo > nigati.thitinivaasesu khipana.t.tho, > > _ > One point I do not think we can correctly talk about an ayuhana > vinnana or any storehouse consciousness. This seems an idea that is > not part of the Theravada. > Accumulating is happening right now - the accumulating of > understanding (or not) that can be a condition as upanissiya paccaya > (support condition) or asevena paccya (repetition condition) for > more understanding and so it keeps accumulating until there are > enough conditions for deep insight to arise. Not by self or wanting > or freewill but by the right conditions. > > __ > While I am on the topic of Paticcasamuppada and accumulations I > requote this old letter as it relates to both accumulating and the > idea of control and freewill: > The Samyutta nikaya ii ch xii, 1 > EAnd what, bhikkhus is dependent origination? With ignorance > (avijja) as > condition, volitional formations(sankharas) come to be, with > volitional > formations as condition, consciousness(vinnana); with consciousness > as > condition, mentality and materiality (nama and rupa); with mentality > and > materiality as condition the six sense bases (salayatana); with the > six > sense bases as condition contact (phassa), with contact as condition, > feeling (vedana); with feeling as condition, craving (tanha); with > craving > as condition, grasping (upadana); with clinging as condition, > becoming > (bhava); with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, > ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and > despair > come > to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, > bhikkhus > is called dependent origination." > > This pithy explanation by the Buddha describes what life really is. > These are elements that make up ourElife. They are occurring now but > usually we are ignorant (avijja -the first link) of the factors. And > because of this ignorance comes the view that "I"Eexist, that > feeling is > mine or eye is mine, or that "I"Eam seeing, hearing, tasting, > thinking. > > Knowing about Paticcasamuppada we might decide to do something about > it, > try to stop craving. However, this decision and trying comes under > the > link of sankhara (volitional formations). It may reinforce or hide a > subtle perception of self and control. > > The Samyutta nikaya nidanavagga ii ch xii, 40 Volition > "Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one > has > a > tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of > consciousnessEthen consciousness is established and has come to > growth, > there is inclination;Esuch is the origin of this whole mass of > suffering." E > > The first step should be comprehension of the factors of the wheel. > > One of the links is SalayatanaE the six sense bases. > The Samyutta nikaya ii ch xii, 2 > "And what bhikkhu are the six sense bases? There are these six > bases: > eye > base, ear base, nose base, tongue base, body base, mind base" > > Conditioned by these bases there is contact and because of contact > feeling: "there are six classes of feeling: feeling born of eye- > contact, > feeling born of ear contact, feeling born of nose contact, feeling > born of > tongue contact, feeling born of body contact, feeling born of mind > contact." ibid. > And conditioned by the six classes of feeling tanha(craving) arises. > > Majjhima > Nikaya 148 > Chachakka Sutta > The Blessed One said: "The six internal media should be known. > The six external media should be known. The six classes of > consciousness should be known. The six classes of contact should > be known. The six classes of feeling should be known. The six > classes of craving should be known." > > Note that it says the six classes of craving should be known. I > think this is important, craving is part of the wheel. Usually we > misperceive it as "my" craving. But craving, as much as other > dhammas, can > be an object for understanding. if it is seen through the lens of > anatta > it is not mistaken for "my" craving and so its true > characteristic can be seen. (Craving, the English translation of > tanha, > may make us think of a very strong desire, but tanha includes even > very > minute aspects of unwholesome desire) > > Later the sutta says: > > "'The six classes of craving should be known.' Thus it was said. > In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms > there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three > is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is > feeling. With feeling as a requisite condition there is > craving." and it repeats for the other senses of ear, nose, tongue, > body, > mind. > > "If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be > tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. > And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would > follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it > wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the > self.' So the eye is not-self. ...... > If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be > tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. > And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would > follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it > wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the > self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, > consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is > not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self. " > > What then should we do and what is right effort: > > Ogha-tarana Sutta > Crossing the Flood > This is the very first sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya > A deva asks the Buddha how he crossed the flood (the four floods are > sensuality, becoming, views, ignorance). > > "Sir, how did you cross the flood? > Friend, by not remaining still, and by not putting forth strenuous > effort, > I crossed the flood." > But Sir, in what way did you cross the flood, neither remaining > still, nor > putting forth strenuous effort. > Friend, if I remained still. I sank; > If I put forth strenuous effort, I was swept away > Thus, by neither remaining still nor putting forth strenuous effort, > I > crossed the flood." > Robert > #116990 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wish Us Luck! :-)wow upasaka_howard Hi, Chuck - In a message dated 8/25/2011 6:59:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhammasaro@... writes: Howdy, Sincere warm thanks for your quick reply. I should be at home, in the drought-stricken Texas Hill Country, dowsing for water; --------------------------------------------- Ah, yes, I should have remembered that you're a Texan, especially since my elder son lives in Plano (which I recall you are familiar with). -------------------------------------------- however, I had the opportunity to private tutor (English) a Presbyterian Minister from the Republic of Korea (ROK) during this summer. We finished last week. This was in the Philadelphia area. -------------------------------------------- Yes, I also recall that you are in Philly often. BTW, do you know any Korean? I know a few words - I went to 4th dan black belt in taekwondo. But that was years ago - I stopped practice at 53, and now I'm 71. At this stage I make do with some weights workouts and tennis. ------------------------------------------- So, we will be affected somewhat... one Irene track is for the "eye" to follow Interstate Highway 95 through DC, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and, New York. ---------------------------------------------- Well, all that land exposure may give Long Island a break. ------------------------------------------- Fortunately, we are some one-hundred feet above MSL. So expect just damage from the wind and any possible water from broken window panes. The latest wind speed prediction I heard was 85 - 90 mph for the Philly area. --------------------------------------------- That's significant! Stay safe!! ------------------------------------------ Will be putting away all loose items around the house. ------------------------------------------ Indeed!! ----------------------------------------- peace... metta (maitri), Chuck Post script: Any experiences in the recent earthquake? ---------------------------------------------- Some folks in some areas on Long Island really felt it, but we felt nothing. You were closer to the epicenter - so I presume you did feel it. =============================== With metta, Howard P. S. Apologies to DSG for the non-Dhammic correspondence. If the conversation continues, you and I, Chuck, should take it off list. Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116991 From: "philip" Date: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:25 pm Subject: On the train and at the beef bowl place philofillet Hi all I was on the train, eyes closed. Someone sat next to me, as I scrunched over to make room, my eyes opened and I saw enough to know it was a woman (sanna on colour and kind of clothing) but not her appearance, age etc. Eyes closed. Our sleeves brushed together, and that little bit of body sense consciousness (always accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant feeling) triggered a sudden proliferation and I could see the woman now on the mental movie screen, and then when the train came to my station hiri otappa, virya etc arose to not confirm by looking whether she was likw the woman who had been conjured conditioned by that little bit of colour and little bit of hardness/softness. I also remembered a story Rob K told about proliferation triggered by a soft coat pressing against him on a train. Maybe there is something about Japanese trains... A bit later I went to a beef bowl place, lots of metta for all of us shovelling our grub, how many lives consumed by my one puny existence etc, mindfulness of this while eating quite often arising recently.( But it is a concept, so it is sati that arises to recollect it.) Pleasant feeling, libha re the air con and the old Japanese pop song pkaying, reminiscent of early days in Japan. The shop door slid open, my head and the head of the guy sitting next to me swivelled at the same monent and we both "saw" the woebegone looking businessman walk in. No, that was the world conjured by my accumulations, the guy next to me might have "seen" an angry looking "man", we all live in different worlds conjured by the operation of dhammas, fascinating! Metta, Phil #116992 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:23 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Wish Us Luck! :-) dhammasaro Howdy, Wish you luck and prepare. Earlier, when I was speaking on the phone with my sister-in-law; my son came home and told her to evacuate. As I already had made some suggestions, I said I would drop-off to let her prepare. And, to later advise me of her plans. My son is a US Coast Guard officer assigned to USCG Air Station - Elizabeth City, NC. He returned to the base. No doubt he will stay on the base. peace... metta (maitri), Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:53:19 -0400 Subject: [dsg] Wish Us Luck! :-) Hi, all - Hurricane Irene which will be impacting the U.S. East coast may well make it's primary landfall late Sunday night directly on the part of Long Island where we live, and at the time that happens it will be somewhere between a powerful tropical storm and a category 1 hurricane, with sustained wind speeds I estimate somewhere between 70 mph and 75 mph . You can see this well on the U.S. national weather service map at _http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents_ (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents) In a way, this will be an "adventure" though a bit more excitement than I would hope for. ;-)) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116993 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:59 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Wish Us Luck! :-) dhammasaro Howdy, Sincere warm thanks for your quick reply. I should be at home, in the drought-stricken Texas Hill Country, dowsing for water; however, I had the opportunity to private tutor (English) a Presbyterian Minister from the Republic of Korea (ROK) during this summer. We finished last week. This was in the Philadelphia area. So, we will be affected somewhat... one Irene track is for the "eye" to follow Interstate Highway 95 through DC, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and, New York. Fortunately, we are some one-hundred feet above MSL. So expect just damage from the wind and any possible water from broken window panes. The latest wind speed prediction I heard was 85 - 90 mph for the Philly area. Will be putting away all loose items around the house. peace... metta (maitri), Chuck Post script: Any experiences in the recent earthquake? To: dhammasaro@...; dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com CC: Upasaka@... From: upasaka@... Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:37:59 -0400 Subject: Re: [dsg] Wish Us Luck! :-) Hi, Chuck - In a message dated 8/25/2011 6:23:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhammasaro@... writes: Howdy, Wish you luck and prepare. --------------------------------------- Many thanks! :-) ------------------------------------- Earlier, when I was speaking on the phone with my sister-in-law; my son came home and told her to evacuate. As I already had made some suggestions, I said I would drop-off to let her prepare. And, to later advise me of her plans. My son is a US Coast Guard officer assigned to USCG Air Station - Elizabeth City, NC. --------------------------------------- Oh, boy! NC will probably get the brunt of this. My very best to your son & sister-in-law. Where are you located, Chuck? I guess you are also in harm's way! -------------------------------------- He returned to the base. No doubt he will stay on the base. --------------------------------------- Good. ------------------------------------- peace... metta (maitri), Chuck ============================= Thanks for writing, Chuck! With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116994 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:56 pm Subject: Re: On the train and at the beef bowl place glenjohnann Hi Phil Points nicely made! So much thinking and endless proliferation, all from accumulations and different for each "stream of citta". Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi all > > I was on the train, eyes closed. Someone sat next to me, as I scrunched over to make room, my eyes opened and I saw enough to know it was a woman (sanna on colour and kind of clothing) but not her appearance, age etc. Eyes closed. Our sleeves brushed together, and that little bit of body sense consciousness (always accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant feeling) triggered a sudden proliferation and I could see the woman now on the mental movie screen, and then when the train came to my station hiri otappa, virya etc arose to not confirm by looking whether she was likw the woman who had been conjured conditioned by that little bit of colour and little bit of hardness/softness. I also remembered a story Rob K told about proliferation triggered by a soft coat pressing against him on a train. Maybe there is something about Japanese trains... > > A bit later I went to a beef bowl place, lots of metta for all of us shovelling our grub, how many lives consumed by my one puny existence etc, mindfulness of this while eating quite often arising recently.( But it is a concept, so it is sati that arises to recollect it.) Pleasant feeling, libha re the air con and the old Japanese pop song pkaying, reminiscent of early days in Japan. The shop door slid open, my head and the head of the guy sitting next to me swivelled at the same monent and we both "saw" the woebegone looking businessman walk in. No, that was the world conjured by my accumulations, the guy next to me might have "seen" an angry looking "man", we all live in different worlds conjured by the operation of dhammas, fascinating! > > Metta, > Phil > #116995 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:37 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > i just accidentaly sent this reply from my other yahoo account, not sure how it'll show up in your inbox, sorry, it'll hopefully go to spam. anyway, here's the reply from the normal account which should go to dsg list as usual I did get the message in my inbox, but no problem. It just gave me a little preview of your response. :-) > > RE: Not to mention a little bit of condescension and self-righteousness here and there, such as saying "...for purposes of diplomacy...," as opposed to accuracy, over and over again, as if there is something especially nice about that. > > ...But for purposes of diplomacy - that means, ok let's waive all the flaws in our statements and try once again to resolve the issue. So, nothing nice, just persistent. Okay, that is a noble effort. Diplomacy has a different meaning to me, but I understand what you are saying. > > RE: "Which when understood" refers to the truth, but understanding it comes by way of hearing the description, and then through contemplating the description of reality - that is, the written scriptures - one comes to understand that reality. > > pt: Ok. My initial statement was quite general, so by "understanding the truth" I pretty much had in mind enlightenment, i.e. the last part of the path, whereas you preferred to consider the beginning of the path. No problems. There are problems with using terms like understanding. My concern is for where the understanding takes place. The abstraction of citta taking nibbana as object - very technical - does very little to clarify what kind of understanding really represents enlightenment, and what kinds of experiential moments really represent the path. The technicalities of many of the discussions, like it or not, are far removed from anything we experience. We might as well say 'we experience molecules of mercury' for all it means experientially. When you have a technical understanding of the path and enlightenment it tends to be intellectual because it doesn't really live anywhere else. What you talk about in your description of what you consider pariyatti, however, is different than that. You talk about how it would affect your focus and your objects of concern in everyday life, and your description has a human component that would actually let you see how you are progressing on the path. I don't personally see a whole lot in common with that description and what often constitutes the more technical discussions around here. I'm not against those technicalities, but saying that panna arises with thus and such cetasikas doesn't seem to me to do much of anything beyond continuously increased intellectual clarity on how such moments are supposed to work on paper. > pt: OK. In that respect - regarding the "description" issue, what would classify as understanding of the description? In other words, which i believe is the main concern of yours - is pariyatti purely intellectual, or is there something more practical to it? > > My take on it is like this - pariyatti happens when there is panna accompanying a citta that has a concept as object (usually a concept of a dhamma). now, what that means in normal language? Imo, it is the difference between purely intellectual path and a path that is practical (so real life, real daily experiences so to speak). If there was no panna arising, it would all be intellectual, even if one is reciting abhidhamma, or giving a lecture on how a citta conditions other cittas and cetasikas. But if there's panna, then regardless of whether one is reciting abhidhamma or he is considering the anger that arose in response to something that his mother said, it is all pariyatti in the sense that there is panna together with the citta that has a concept as the object. That makes sense, but what is going to cause panna to arise, as we continue to discuss issues of technical understanding and technical clarity? Do you think it will arise because of the understanding of these discussions? And if not, what's going to bring panna into the equation? > > RE: Except that I'm not sure to what degree our understanding of correct practice is the same. > > pt: Yes, though I suggest discussing that with Sarah and others as I'm not entirely sure on that issue myself. Okay. > > > > RE: I think you could understand the truth as described by the Dhamma for many many lifetimes, better and better and in more detail, without creating the conditions that would lead to the ending of samsara. > > > > > > pt: Speculation, who knows. > > > > RE: The fact that it is speculative, and can't be determined in this lifetime with any certainty, is the point. > > pt: Well, ok, if you want to speculate in more detail, i wouldn't really agree with you. if there's panna really arising with the understanding of the description (so concepts as objects of citta), i.e. it's not purely intellectual, then panna accumulates, and that is never lost i think. otherwise there really is no difference between memorising and intellectualising abhidhamma and memorising and intellectualising a shopping list. in other words, imo, pariyatti becomes pariyatti when there's understanding of the experiences of real life (albeit with concepts as object of citta and panna) as based on what was gotten through the description of the truth. That is good, and it comes back to practice again. I don't see sati, panna and vipassana arising by only dwelling in the descriptions given by the scriptures. If that description is applied to everyday life, and applied in a specialized way in meditation, rather than waiting for moments to come somehow from just reading and considering, then I see those practices developing the path. But we don't have to get into that if you think it's better to discuss it elsewhere. > > RE: It depends on what you mean by "understanding of the truth." In what way is the truth understood to qualify as "practice" rather than conceptual knowledge? Can you say more about what the understanding consists of and how and in what way it is understood? > > pt: i hope I explained above - so absence/presence of panna differentiates an intellectual/philosophical understanding from a real-life understanding, even though both would have concepts as objects of citta. Yes, that is clear. > > RE: Except that there is a strong view among all those you have mentioned that meditation is not part of the path, does not lead to kusala cittas arising and strengthens the sense of personal self-view. > > pt: I'm not sure that's quite so. It's just that what they term "meditation" is different from what you term "meditation". Right, I'm normally talking about meditation as it is ordinarily understood - taking time to purposely consider and develop the understanding of the arising moments, using either breath or another object as the object of the meditation. Such meditation involves a certain degree of concentration and intention, and then continues to focus on arising moments and their nature as they arise. > For them, it's about kusala citta arising with panna, since that's what in essence equates to development of kusala, or bhavana (translated as meditation). kusala citta of course is not restricted to a time of the day or an activity - it can arise during a conversation with your mother just like it can arise during any other time. Every adherent to meditation practice also agrees with the understanding of moments arising in everyday life and that moments of insight can occur at any time, and cannot be controlled. This idea of meditation equaling an attempt to control the moments that arise or to force panna to arise is a very popular strawman, speaking of strawmen. The difference is that there is also a regular practice and this tends to lead to a more regular course of development. > so, the question is then whether what you call "meditation" relates to an arising of a kusala citta, or does it relates to something else? if to something else, then what, and how does that relate to kusala citta? etc. It relates to the extent that such moments arise in the course of the practice, but the practice itself is indeed a regimen that is given to allow more regular development of such qualities. This group is the only place I have encountered in the world of Buddhism that seems to believe that this is a bad thing, and will not lead to further bhavana, because of the special view here that any purposeful intentional effort is doomed to promote further self-view, and lead to false akusala moments, which I just don't agree with. I also see no basis for this view in anything I have read. > > RE: Is that your view as well, or not? > > pt: yes, it's sort of like i explained above. that said, i still like to meditate when i have time, as in sit down (or rather lie down in my case) for a couple of hours and not move. but, like Phil, I'm finding this is more sort of like yoga or something, rather than some concerted effort to gain insight or smth like that. it feels very nice, relaxing and very happy, so a bit like a favorite pass time, though very time-consuming and possibly dangerous if your health is not very good (i'm not even getting into the whole wrong view thing here, i'm just referring to bad health in terms of the body, the energy channels and whatnot). How is it dangerous for health to have a period of time of stillness and relaxation, if that is all that it is? As far as energy channels go, if you are not doing anything forceful, what would be negative about such a pastime? I think that sometimes it is instinctively clear that it is positive and helpful to spend some time in this way, without forcefulness, and it doesn't matter whether we think it is theoretically correct or not if it has a positive impact in one way or another. > > RE: The main points of dispute are: how do considerations in daily life take place - do they just arise or are they cultivated purposely? > > pt: Well say you just read about dosa and how destructive it is in terms of kamma and accumulations, as well as the fact that it is not-self. And then the next morning you're arguing with your mother (sorry I keep using the mother example because you mentioned in one of the posts that understanding should arise while in daily life situations while talking to your mother or smth like that), and there in the midst of the argument suddenly a recollection arises of the unwholesomness of dosa, and at that moment you really see dosa as unhelpful in that situation. that would be pariyatti i think. if dosa is also recognised as anatta, that would be patipatti i think. etc. now about cultivating purposefully - does that mean that you have to attempt to have an argument with your mother on purpose every day so that an understanding of dosa could arise? and would it? i don't think so. Leaving aside the silliness of trying to have the same argument over and over again - although sometimes this kind of pattern could actually take place - obviously one could use whatever arose in the moment as the object of understanding, but that is not what I mean by "regular practice." I think your example of recalling an understanding from Dhamma and having it come into play in the midst of a real-life situation is a good one, and your distinction between pariyatti and patipatti there sounds pretty good too. > > RE: And: does meditation practice = bhavana, or can it? What is your view on those points? > > pt: assuming that by meditation you mean sitting down and doing something with your mind for two hours (some sort of technique) - i don't know. i tend to think that kusala can arise in any situation, but so can akusala. which one is arising in your case, that's what you have to figure out. > > > > RE: The way in which you framed everyday experience of dhammas and arising of bhavana are different than I would put them. It comes down to whether they are actual practices or not, which "the many" we are talking about would say they are not. > > pt: yes i see the difficulty. i think it's because it's hard to swallow the argument that a practice can be all kusala, and thus reconcile it with the axiom that bhavana=kusala citta. e.g. say you meditate for 2 hours, there must be some hindrances arising from time to time, which are akusala. hence, in strict terms, you can't say that the meditation as a practice is all kusala. then you have to examine, ok, so how much of it is kusala? then you have to examine if in fact there's development of both kusala and akusala? and then when it comes to kusala, how certain are you that it's actually kusala? etc. and then in essence, the problem reduces down to a single citta - is it kusala or akusala, and how do you know it is. so sarah and nina say - only panna can know. so it seems everyone else can only warn you about the possible pitfalls, such as fooling yourself, taking akusala for kusala, etc, and then it's down to panna to hopefully see what's really going on. Yeah, I understand this way of looking at it, based on the idea that kusala and akusala can equally arise in any situation depending on other factors which we don't control. I just happen to have faith in the basic practice which I think has an effect that is impersonal and ultimately developmental over time, and that has come from the teachings. I know there is disagreement here about that, and that's the way it is. I hear what the Buddha said in the anapanasati and satipatthana sutta and I don't see those instructions as applying only to the very advanced, and dangerous for others. I think that's an esoteric interpretation of those suttas, which contain very clear instructions for development through meditative practice. There will, I think, never be agreement about that in this group. All I can say is that if it did not come from the Buddha's own words, I would have more doubt about such a practice and its ability to produce kusala moments and kusala development. > > RE: I am also finding the definition of pariyatti extremely flexible depending on the context. I remember being told over and over again that right view and understanding the Dhamma intellectually was pariyatti and that understanding Dhamma conceptually was necessary first before true moments of panna and mindfulness would arise in "everyday life," which would be patipatti. Patipatti = practice, and pariyatti is the understanding "of the desription" that leads to correct practice. So you seem to disagree with this and think pariyatti involves a lot more of the actual practice, the actual arising of mindfulness, understanding, etc., to whatever degree. That leaves me pretty confused between different versions of pariyatti, speaking of consistency. > > pt: Hm, well, maybe I'm wrong then, maybe you'd care to doublecheck with others. That's why it might be good to frame it in strict abhidhamma terminology for starters, as it is very precise, and then later on we can try and translate it into everyday language. So, my understanding is that: > > 1. pariyatti is the arising of panna with those cittas that have concepts as object, so not just intellectual knowledge (so concepts as objects of citta without panna). that's how i understand Nina and Sarah to often say that abhidhamma is not in the books, for example. > > 2. patipatti is the arising of panna with those cittas that have dhammas as objects, so there's the seeing of the characterstics of a dhamma. > > 3. pativeda, i'm not sure, i think this refers to supramudane moments (so nibbana as object of citta), or possibly to moments of inisght of vipassana nana strength, so still a dhamma as object of citta and panna, but with one of the nanas. I forgot what exactly is the deal there. > > Perhaps someone can point out if I'm mistaken somewhere there. I think that's a pretty clear rundown and I'll bet it's probably correct. Let's wait and see what some others may say on this technically, and then at least the definitions of pariyatti and patipatti may be resolved. That's a pretty good shot at it I think! Thanks for the discussion so far. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #116996 From: "Christine" Date: Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:02 am Subject: Re: Wish Us Luck! :-) christine_fo... Hello Howard, My thoughts are with you all. Brisbane had severe floods (as did much of our east coast) in January this year, and many people are still not in their houses yet (insurance companies ducking and weaving). Most injuries and deaths were of those who did not heed the warnings of authorities to leave and find a safe place elsewhere. They thought they'd stick it out. Please don't do that if you are advised to leave. Mahametta and my thoughts are with you all. Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- ---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > Hurricane Irene which will be impacting the U.S. East coast may well > make it's primary landfall late Sunday night directly on the part of Long > Island where we live, and at the time that happens it will be somewhere > between a powerful tropical storm and a category 1 hurricane, with sustained > wind speeds I estimate somewhere between 70 mph and 75 mph . You can see this > well on the U.S. national weather service map at > _http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents_ > (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents) > In a way, this will be an "adventure" though a bit more excitement > than I would hope for. ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard > > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #116997 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Wish Us Luck! :-) upasaka_howard Hi, Chris - In a message dated 8/26/2011 5:03:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cjforsyth1@... writes: Hello Howard, My thoughts are with you all. -------------------------------------------- Thanks! :-) -------------------------------------- Brisbane had severe floods (as did much of our east coast) in January this year, and many people are still not in their houses yet (insurance companies ducking and weaving). ------------------------------------------ I paid some attention to that flooding. Unbelievable!! ------------------------------------------ Most injuries and deaths were of those who did not heed the warnings of authorities to leave and find a safe place elsewhere. They thought they'd stick it out. Please don't do that if you are advised to leave. -------------------------------------------- Thanks. We are unlikely to be asked to evacuate inasmuch as we are centrally located and away from the ocean (to the South) and also away from the Long Island Sound (to the North). -------------------------------------------- Mahametta and my thoughts are with you all. Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- ---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it --- ============================= I appreciate your writing, Chris! :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116998 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:40 am Subject: Re: Wish Us Luck! :-) epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > Hurricane Irene which will be impacting the U.S. East coast may well > make it's primary landfall late Sunday night directly on the part of Long > Island where we live, and at the time that happens it will be somewhere > between a powerful tropical storm and a category 1 hurricane, with sustained > wind speeds I estimate somewhere between 70 mph and 75 mph . You can see this > well on the U.S. national weather service map at > _http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents_ > (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents) > In a way, this will be an "adventure" though a bit more excitement > than I would hope for. ;-)) Hope things go well - I think you'll be hit harder than we will, as we are currently in D.C. but we'll keep breathing with awareness :-) and hope for the best. We're supposed to fly off to a week in Florida tomorrow morning so we'll see if we're cleared for liftoff! Good timing! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #116999 From: "philip" Date: Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:53 am Subject: Re: Wish Us Luck! :-) philofillet Good luck, Howard My typhoon related dosa is always that they tend to veer offcourse or weaken before hitting Tokyo, always disappointing because I am obsessed with getting any amount of paid time off work I can and love the powerful winds. Typhoons are (like everything else) entirely for me and my entertainment/pleasure. We have to recognize our defilements. There is probably more sincere concern on your part for the welll being of your neighbours etc. we all have different accumulations. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > Hurricane Irene which will be impacting the U.S. East coast may well > make it's primary landfall late Sunday night directly on the part of Long > Island where we live, and at the time that happens it will be somewhere > between a powerful tropical storm and a category 1 hurricane, with sustained > wind speeds I estimate somewhere between 70 mph and 75 mph . You can see this > well on the U.S. national weather service map at > _http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents_ > (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day?large#contents) > In a way, this will be an "adventure" though a bit more excitement > than I would hope for. ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard > > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) >